Sometimes discretion and silence really is the best response.
One person should not be the moral mentor of another unless invited to that role since personal responsibility is just that and is not a third-party interest.
If this fellow were concerned about "Jane's" choice, he should talk to her and educate himself as to her reasons and motivation. Without a clear understanding of what is in Jane's mind, his action, based upon his ignorance, is the worst that I would fear.
One person should not be the moral mentor of another unless invited to that role since personal responsibility is just that and is not a third-party interest.
If this fellow were concerned about "Jane's" choice, he should talk to her and educate himself as to her reasons and motivation. Without a clear understanding of what is in Jane's mind, his action, based upon his ignorance, is the worst that I would fear.
1
Should he tell? Absolutely. Lies by omission are still lies. Since the author knows that Peter may not consent to continuing the relationship if he knew it is ethically imperative that the author tell him. Do you really want your friend Peter to be in a non-consensual relationship?
Also, when someone lies to you about your relationship it's basically another way of them telling you that you don't matter. No one wants to be in a relationship where they don't matter. You'll be doing them both a favor by telling them. When it comes to relationships, honesty is the best policy and empowering people to may fully informed decisions is the right thing to do. Tell him.
Speaking from experience, I can say that yes, the result of the knowledge will likely be painful for both Peter and Jane. But don't worry too much. People are more resilient than we often give them credit for.
If they both want the relationship to continue they will work it out. If not, then that needs to be okay too. They'll both probably find something better--a consensual relationship based on well-deserved trust, respect, and honesty. Do you really want to deny Peter that?
Martin's wife deserves to know too. I know it's harder when kids are involved, but it is still so important for people to be in honest, consensual relationships. Maybe they'll stay together, maybe they won't. Either way, telling her gives her the information she needs to decide for herself --a decision she should never be denied.
Also, when someone lies to you about your relationship it's basically another way of them telling you that you don't matter. No one wants to be in a relationship where they don't matter. You'll be doing them both a favor by telling them. When it comes to relationships, honesty is the best policy and empowering people to may fully informed decisions is the right thing to do. Tell him.
Speaking from experience, I can say that yes, the result of the knowledge will likely be painful for both Peter and Jane. But don't worry too much. People are more resilient than we often give them credit for.
If they both want the relationship to continue they will work it out. If not, then that needs to be okay too. They'll both probably find something better--a consensual relationship based on well-deserved trust, respect, and honesty. Do you really want to deny Peter that?
Martin's wife deserves to know too. I know it's harder when kids are involved, but it is still so important for people to be in honest, consensual relationships. Maybe they'll stay together, maybe they won't. Either way, telling her gives her the information she needs to decide for herself --a decision she should never be denied.
14
The issue is your comfort, not others' morality. You must decide and respect your comfort level, which very well may mean no longer being friends with either of them. You need to tell Jane how uncomfortable it made you to be set up to lie to Peter about pictures, hen discuss with her your feelings. Is she able to respect them? If not, is she truly a friend? I'm reminded of Nick and Jordan in The Great Gatsby. Jordan went along with the shallow show of the relationship between Daisy and Tom. Nick could not and left.
I was friends with a woman in college in the '90s who cheated on her husband. I was older by 15 years or more. The husband had been alcoholic, then recovering. My friend told me she liked him better when he was drinking. I saw the codependency right away and it really angered me that this woman expected me to go along with her secret. I had just recently lost my marriage due to my husband's constant, daily philandering. For me, it was painful and destructivewhat this woman was doing. Her husband found out (not from me) and then met with me about it. She had told him it had lasted a week. I told him I knew it had been a couple of months. At that point, my friendship with both of them ended. I felt sorry for the man, but angry at my former friend. There simply was no way for me to be comfortable in it. I made my decision in a way to take care of myself. As sad as it seems in the moment, this is the best approach, most honest. Honor your own needs and feelings.
I was friends with a woman in college in the '90s who cheated on her husband. I was older by 15 years or more. The husband had been alcoholic, then recovering. My friend told me she liked him better when he was drinking. I saw the codependency right away and it really angered me that this woman expected me to go along with her secret. I had just recently lost my marriage due to my husband's constant, daily philandering. For me, it was painful and destructivewhat this woman was doing. Her husband found out (not from me) and then met with me about it. She had told him it had lasted a week. I told him I knew it had been a couple of months. At that point, my friendship with both of them ended. I felt sorry for the man, but angry at my former friend. There simply was no way for me to be comfortable in it. I made my decision in a way to take care of myself. As sad as it seems in the moment, this is the best approach, most honest. Honor your own needs and feelings.
10
Talk to "Jane" and tell her you will not be complicit in her lie. She is free to do what she wants but don't put you in a position of "covering" for her
24
There is something very odd about "Jane" sharing her betrayal (which has been carrying on for not one but TWO marriages) with the author of this letter. Doesn't the author have a responsibility, as a moral person, to share his disgust at Jane's behavior---and exit their "friendship" if she doesn't clean up her act? A good friend would be there to commiserate with Jane as she made a final break with this other man----and remind her that whatever pain it caused her was less important than the gift of having a real, honest marriage. Who would want to be friends with someone with such a distorted notion of marriage?
By sharing in Jane's perfidy the author is a silent partner in making a fool of Peter and tacitly approving Jane's extra-curricular activities.
Taking a "business as usual" approach to friends who tell us about profoundly unethical behavior doesn't just cheapen the quality of our friendships; it cheapens ourselves.
By sharing in Jane's perfidy the author is a silent partner in making a fool of Peter and tacitly approving Jane's extra-curricular activities.
Taking a "business as usual" approach to friends who tell us about profoundly unethical behavior doesn't just cheapen the quality of our friendships; it cheapens ourselves.
10
Very simple: Keep your mouth shut.
If you don't reveal the secret, people might not get hurt moreover Jane and Martin have some happiness generated by their affair. Let them have that. If you open your mouth, it is absolutely guaranteed that a lot of people - children included - will be badly hurt. The only person's who can be helped by your moralistic self-centered need to reveal what a dear friend told you in confidence are the ghouls who practice divorce law.
Keep your mouth shut. And if you can't handle it, distance yourself from all of them. Very simple.
If you don't reveal the secret, people might not get hurt moreover Jane and Martin have some happiness generated by their affair. Let them have that. If you open your mouth, it is absolutely guaranteed that a lot of people - children included - will be badly hurt. The only person's who can be helped by your moralistic self-centered need to reveal what a dear friend told you in confidence are the ghouls who practice divorce law.
Keep your mouth shut. And if you can't handle it, distance yourself from all of them. Very simple.
14
As a child of an adulterous father, I would have given anything for someone to stop him to protect my mother. She would have had a better life, and I would have grown up differently. Talk to your woman friend and have a continuing dialog about this. She is the one you should be talking to.
12
I totally disagree with the advice given. Jane is using you to hide her adultery.
She is a manipulator and a liar. What about Martin's wife and children? They are the innocent victims of Jane and Martin's selfish behavior. My advice would be to let Jane know that you will not be her enabler. If she puts you in that position again, you will reveal the truth to Peter. If Jane is willing to deceive her husband over a period of years for the trill of a sexual tryst, is she worthy of your friendship? Quirkly? Not worth it to me. Good Luck.
She is a manipulator and a liar. What about Martin's wife and children? They are the innocent victims of Jane and Martin's selfish behavior. My advice would be to let Jane know that you will not be her enabler. If she puts you in that position again, you will reveal the truth to Peter. If Jane is willing to deceive her husband over a period of years for the trill of a sexual tryst, is she worthy of your friendship? Quirkly? Not worth it to me. Good Luck.
10
So, the Ethicist decided prior to publication that it is without question ethical to intervene in the marriages of others with information which is not directly solicited? The ethical aspects of any decision to be made by "Name Withheld" are thus discussed in terms of "betraying", "deceit" and "forgiveness vs understanding" etc. Apparently in the world the Ethicist lives not only can "friends" share--unasked-- information about the acts of one spouse with the other spouse, but the friend is allowed to base his "ethical" decision-making on his own evaluation of the consequences to his friends' marriage. Jane's visits with Martin (ala "The Same Time Next Year") are automatically judged as "adultery" and a "continual deception".
The value-loaded language used in this column is such a barrier to examining and understanding any ethical aspects of the situation as described that the ethical questions which might exist in a messy situation about human relationships are hidden under the garbage of judgements already made.
The value-loaded language used in this column is such a barrier to examining and understanding any ethical aspects of the situation as described that the ethical questions which might exist in a messy situation about human relationships are hidden under the garbage of judgements already made.
11
Appiah does a good job focusing on a feature of obligation that I think deserves more attention in textbook conversations about ethics, namely, the ways in which our relationships with others generate different kinds of moral "weight," as measured by our emotional closeness to them. Too often these kinds of discussions seem to devolve into simple dilemmas that pit rule-following ("always tell the truth") against utility-measuring ("do what makes the most people happy").
Nevertheless, I wish he had discussed the consequences for society at large of normalizing Jane's kind of behavior. What happens when liars (and let's be clear: Jane is a liar) know that they can depend upon their community to help them maintain their deceit?
Moreover, I wonder about the personal, nonsocial, impact of Jane's behavior on the institution of marriage, that is, the benefit that two individuals are supposed to derive from "sharing," in some meaningful sense, "the same life" with one another. Peter and Jane's marriage is supposed to be a relationship in which they do more than just intermingle finances and a living situation; they're supposed to be "planning out," and living, "the same life." Presumably, the enormous benefit of doing so makes marriage worth having. But if Jane really does think of Martin as her "soulmate," that must define both her sense of self and what she conceives of as her "life." So, are Jane and Peter really sharing the same "life"? What, exactly, is worth saving here?
Nevertheless, I wish he had discussed the consequences for society at large of normalizing Jane's kind of behavior. What happens when liars (and let's be clear: Jane is a liar) know that they can depend upon their community to help them maintain their deceit?
Moreover, I wonder about the personal, nonsocial, impact of Jane's behavior on the institution of marriage, that is, the benefit that two individuals are supposed to derive from "sharing," in some meaningful sense, "the same life" with one another. Peter and Jane's marriage is supposed to be a relationship in which they do more than just intermingle finances and a living situation; they're supposed to be "planning out," and living, "the same life." Presumably, the enormous benefit of doing so makes marriage worth having. But if Jane really does think of Martin as her "soulmate," that must define both her sense of self and what she conceives of as her "life." So, are Jane and Peter really sharing the same "life"? What, exactly, is worth saving here?
16
Lying to oneself or others is the first wrong doing in the chain of immoral or unethical deeds. The ethicist jumped right past this and went on to other problems.
Long term relationships, including marriage, do not necessarily provide happiness, but are a cauldron in which we trust that we can work on ourselves in a long term relationship to become the best person we can be. We trust that our partner has our best interests in mind. This woman is engaged in intentional deceit (even if it's a game) toward her partner. Secrets others keep (parents included) affect us even when we don't recognize an elephant in the room. Deceit and betrayal are big elephants that affect family for generations.
Many of are naïve and don't realize that Intuition is considered a form of knowledge today. Connect the dots, put the mosaic together, recognize the patterns, and don't be afraid of pain. It's the best friend you will ever have.
Long term relationships, including marriage, do not necessarily provide happiness, but are a cauldron in which we trust that we can work on ourselves in a long term relationship to become the best person we can be. We trust that our partner has our best interests in mind. This woman is engaged in intentional deceit (even if it's a game) toward her partner. Secrets others keep (parents included) affect us even when we don't recognize an elephant in the room. Deceit and betrayal are big elephants that affect family for generations.
Many of are naïve and don't realize that Intuition is considered a form of knowledge today. Connect the dots, put the mosaic together, recognize the patterns, and don't be afraid of pain. It's the best friend you will ever have.
4
Having been in the position of having a cheating spouse I can only say that the husband here knows something is wrong, but most likely doesn't know what it is. An affair can't exist without lies and the cheating spouse is making up more lies than just about where she is spending weekends. She also has him convinced that he is the cause of the invisible wall that exists in the marriage. All marriages have ups and downs, and if one person takes that to mean that they should cheat, they have started the marriage down a path to divorce, or at least misery.
The wife in this case has a whole web of lies around her affair, even to point of fake San Francisco pictures.
The writer can't tell the husband about the affair unless he knows that the husband is ready to hear it, which is unlikely, but he should, in no uncertain terms, tell his lying friend to not make him part of the lie.
The wife in this case has a whole web of lies around her affair, even to point of fake San Francisco pictures.
The writer can't tell the husband about the affair unless he knows that the husband is ready to hear it, which is unlikely, but he should, in no uncertain terms, tell his lying friend to not make him part of the lie.
16
He should mind his own business, and keep his mouth shut. To open it exacts pain, or at a minimum, the extremely high risk of it. Whenever his discomfort is too much to bear, he should lay it all upon Jane's shoulders (by that I mean her conscience), who burdened him with the messy truth in the first place. I would not be at all surprised if Jane, the narcissist, is not loving all of this tense drama in which she plays the central character. Our morally confused protagonist has the freedom to absent himself at any time. The explanations for his absence are Jane's responsibility -- not his.
10
If my wife were having an affair, she would be violating my trust. To then share her adultery with a friend of mine would be violating my privacy. Thus Jane has betrayed Peter twice, for surely the writer's perception of and relationship with Peter has forever been altered by his knowledge of the affair. Likewise, Jane has wronged the writer twice, not only for making him lie for her but also for disrupting his relationship with Peter.
If Jane was going to have an affair with Martin, she should have had the "decency" to keep it strictly between the two of them and involve nobody else.
If Jane was going to have an affair with Martin, she should have had the "decency" to keep it strictly between the two of them and involve nobody else.
26
This is indeed a dilemma. I believe I would tell Jane that you feel uncomfortable being complicit in helping her conceal her affair with Martin. That while you value your friendship with both Jane & Peter, & have no judgement on her affair with Martin, you ask that she not put you in a position to help her keep the knowledge of her affair from her husband, as she did referencing the emailed photos. Informing Jane's husband of her affair with Martin is an avenue I would not take. For all you know, maybe Peter knows about this affair & is having an affair, too.
8
Where is the friendship here? Jane is willing to risk in adultery (again), and is willing to make her "friend' complicit with an alibi in front of her husband; he says both issues are uncomfortable for him. He also tries to justify the affair to justify his 'friendship' - as if just saying you're uncomfortable absolves anything. The basis of any sustainable relationship is shared values - get new friends with similar values, or stop whining and accept that these are your values, and when the whole truth comes out (and it will), accept the consequences. You will lose one friend because you've been a liar, and might be able to keep the other friend, who is a liar.
7
While I love your ethical explanation you left out one option: He should tell Jane that he is no longer a confidant in her affair. As far as he is concerned the affair is over and he doesn't want to hear about it if it 'starts up again.' He can't be a part of it and be a friend to Peter. If Peter does find out and confronts him, then he can say he thought it was over so there was no reason to tell him. Jane can keep her affair to herself, it is after all her life. Peter may know and prefer not to acknowledge he knows, even to himself. Either way it is their marriage and his friendship is not a part of their secrets, to each other or themselves.
16
Jane should be told not to involve her friend in her lies. She should not have asked him to confirm the receipt of pictures from San Francisco. She was totally out of line. It makes him more complicit. It is one thing not to betray a confidence and another to back up a lie.
16
As someone who has been cheated on I have strong opinions on the matter. Personally I would confront Jane, and if she did not want to tell Peter I would, end of story. He has a right to know.
Adultery does not end all relationships. They may find a way to overcome the issue, but Peter deserves to have a say.
I understand friendship is important. If an instance of cheating was a small slip up, a one time kiss in a club with a stranger I could understand not saying anything, but a continuous affair is another issue.
However each person had their own way of dealing with issues. This would be mine. I understand that wouldn't work for everyone, but the best anyone can do is make a decision they can stand by.
Adultery does not end all relationships. They may find a way to overcome the issue, but Peter deserves to have a say.
I understand friendship is important. If an instance of cheating was a small slip up, a one time kiss in a club with a stranger I could understand not saying anything, but a continuous affair is another issue.
However each person had their own way of dealing with issues. This would be mine. I understand that wouldn't work for everyone, but the best anyone can do is make a decision they can stand by.
9
You're over-thinking this, all of you. Name Withheld and the answerers claims to know what would happen in various future scenarios -- they don't; they are projecting their own values and insecurities. Name Withheld frames it as a moral dilemma about lying, but it seems to be about alliances and judgments. (Ask: if it was a lie in support of a surprise birthday party for "Peter," would there be soul-searching about the deception?) Unlikely. That points to judgments about morality.
Name Withheld also seems more concerned with the consequences to HIMSELF, strategizing how to maintain his own position, not how to minimize pain all around. Poor choice for this week's column. He needs not an ethicist, but a therapist.
Name Withheld also seems more concerned with the consequences to HIMSELF, strategizing how to maintain his own position, not how to minimize pain all around. Poor choice for this week's column. He needs not an ethicist, but a therapist.
3
The bigger question may be why you want to be friends with Jane. Why do you want to be used? Jane's expectation is that others will fulfill her needs and tolerate the damage, even if in an intangible sense. In a close friendship, you may have expectations that your friends find meaning in you. In Jane's case, that meaning is fulfillment of her needs...at the expense of her friend, her husband(s), her lover, the lover's children, the lover's wife, and so on. The affair is not the grimmest of elements here; the affair is simply an example of how Jane rolls. You, too, are paying a price for Jane meeting Jane's needs. The pinnacle of the issue is that Jane is dishonest, selfish and self-centered and those in her path meet her need to fulfill herself. I think the most weighty cost of betrayal in a marriage (and not just sexual betrayal) is that we make choices based on our expectations of our spouse valuing and cherishing us, including some weighty matters such as having (or not having) children, where one lives, where one places the importance of one's career or education, etc. So here, perhaps you have Jane's husband making his life choices based on his expectations of marriage with Jane. Perhaps he will forgive and perhaps he will understand; marriage is a very funky thing. But how about you? How has a close friend's narcissistic tendency to betray cast a shadow on your life, and what does you tolerating it say about you?
9
There's a lot of ego in this writing but I know it's hard to mind your own biz. However, I think this writer feels some kind of ownership in this whole affair. If he gets involved he might suffer unintended consequences.
2
This moral dilemma seems to turn on the assumption "Peter does not know about the affair". What if he does?
1
Shouldn't the writer have just said "no" to all of it? He could question his desire for salaciousness and for others to act out on his behalf. "I'm liberal philosophically...I don't feel the need even to have opinions about other people's affairs." Well, how nice for you, but that's why you're in this fix. Where were your morals when you found out what your "friend" was doing? A close friend of mine who is "liberal philosophically" has been in this situation, and a simple "I'm not going to keep a secret like this" was the end of the friendship, but ok with her. No, she didn't tell, but she didn't know many details because she didn't let the conversation go further.
2
The kind of loyalty Dr. Appiah is talking about is no loyalty at all. The letter writer is clearly troubled by Jane's behavior, and, if the writer's assessment about Peter is correct, Peter would be deeply hurt. Is it really loyalty if you sacrifice everyone's integrity and Peter's well-being to keep a friend? I have no problem with two adults having whatever kind of marriage they want: Jane can go sleep with the whole city of London -- I don't care -- if she and Peter are OK with it. But the writer makes it clear that Peter would be devastated. The problem is not about sexuality; the problem is deception. Deception in a marriage is not a victimless offense. Infidelity can be painfully damaging to people involved. Although it would be far more expedient to just "MYOB," I think a true friend would talk to Jane about being honest with Peter. Jane will likely sever her friendship with the writer. I would let her know that you still care about her and would like to remain her friend -- that, I believe, is loyalty. After Jane has had some time to act or not act, go talk to Peter. He deserves to know the truth, and should not be robbed of the opportunity to choose what to do with his marriage. I realize what I'm advocating is incredibly hard to do. I also believe that recognizing and advocating to do the right thing doesn't necessarily mean I'm morally superior. I recognize that everyone, including myself, could make a bad mistake like Jane.
4
The writer may not realize this but from my point of view Jane, in revealing her adultery to him, was looking for validation on that which she does. They have a long friendship, so this is not surprising. So in making him complicit, along with his concomitant silence, she confirms and validates her adultery. Telling Peter may not be an option; but if the writer is uncomfortable with being placed in the middle he can certainly advise Jane to leave him out of it. This may, in turn, give her food for thought on the nature of that which she is doing....that is....if she truly values the writers friendship.
Just some thoughts.
John~
American Net'Zen
Just some thoughts.
John~
American Net'Zen
8
What are "typically male interests" and what is "bro bonding" ? I suspect that if the roles were reversed and it was the "bro" out bonding with a "soul mate" twice a year the discussion would be very different.
NO one should tell another's spouse about them cheating. No matter how well you think you know someone, I can assure you that you do not. What if it comes to physical assault...children being hurt. Stay out of it...it will sort itself out in THEIR time.
7
An affair? I love reading the comments but must fess up - I am amazed at the huge response to an affair and the lies that it brings. I feel that this tale ended up in the wrong column.
1
Name Witheld should find himself another "friend". Jane is using him to lie, plain & simple. If he is OK with that then carry on but otherwise move on!
4
I have to wonder what bystander letter writer is getting out of his friendship with this couple. Why is he there?
2
My suggestion would be that you talk about your discomfort with your friend, Jane. She has put you in this uncomfortable position of chiming in and claiming to see a picture that you never saw, therefore lying to Peter, and feeling at odds with your personal values. That to me is the issue, not whether the affair is right or wrong which is really not yours to judge.
4
My partner and I, a middle-aged, hetero couple, are getting married in just over a month. I just asked him if he would tell his best (male) friend if he knew this man's wife was in an extra-marital affair. His response, "Hell, yes!" was immediate and loud. Just as loud was my laughter filling his too-long pause when I asked if he would out his cheating buddy to the wife. It's easy to pretend we'd know what we'd do if caught in such a mess; the reality is less easily negotiated.
3
It is really surprising the number of comments that dwell on Jane's lack of integrity and that the LW should end the friendship. Is that all? If your spouse was having an affair, would't you want to know? She could be giving her husband an STD, possibly a deadly one, and he has the right to know. I agree that Jane is no friend but ending the friendship is not enough. If the LW doesn't want to tell the husband in person, he can write an anonymous letter and let Peter sort it out for himself. He may suspect or already know, but living in fool's paradise is not an option.
13
There is some myth that people are carrying on that Peter "probably knows" and their marraige is probably enhanced by the affair and the NM will just destroy a happy marraige or friendships. While this may happen in some cases, in the vast majority of cases:
- the unknowing partner is betrayed beyond belief. He/she is devastated to have the truth hidden from the by a partner and any other accomplices
-if one partner is sneaking around (affairs, drugs, financially, booze) then they are probably too preoccupied to put a real effort in nurturing the relationship. So the marraige is likely not getting its fair share of attention.
-most people who have been cheated on, are glad to no longer be living a lie and be made a fool of behind their backs.
Lets think about Peter and how many other people are involved in the reality of his life without his knowing. That is one of the most devastating things about betrayal--one's right to self determination and making your own choices is taken from you by people (partners, friends, acquaintances) you have trusted.
The letter writer is entitled to make the choice that serves his needs but it is a mistake to dismiss the effect that deception has upon the person who is in the dark. It is a life altering trauma. And one day he will find out and everything he believed about his life will be erased. It is better to find out now rather than later when Martin shows up at Jane's funeral.
- the unknowing partner is betrayed beyond belief. He/she is devastated to have the truth hidden from the by a partner and any other accomplices
-if one partner is sneaking around (affairs, drugs, financially, booze) then they are probably too preoccupied to put a real effort in nurturing the relationship. So the marraige is likely not getting its fair share of attention.
-most people who have been cheated on, are glad to no longer be living a lie and be made a fool of behind their backs.
Lets think about Peter and how many other people are involved in the reality of his life without his knowing. That is one of the most devastating things about betrayal--one's right to self determination and making your own choices is taken from you by people (partners, friends, acquaintances) you have trusted.
The letter writer is entitled to make the choice that serves his needs but it is a mistake to dismiss the effect that deception has upon the person who is in the dark. It is a life altering trauma. And one day he will find out and everything he believed about his life will be erased. It is better to find out now rather than later when Martin shows up at Jane's funeral.
14
Such sincere comments, so much projection. There is no point judging other people's marriages based on your own, or on some "ideal" prescribed by a church or therapy group or whatever. Jane is living out an immature fantasy. The twice-a-year weekends with the "soul-mate" (oh, please) are basically foolishness, a variation on Cops and Robbers (catch me if you can), and/or the false excitement of living a double life. Or perhaps Jane and her long-distance lover are suffering from Terminal Uniqueness (I love my spouse, but oh you kid). It's nonsense and very tiresome. The world is filled with nice people. Find a new friend!
29
exactly... Two "soul-mates". What losers.
7
Sure, go ahead. Hahahaha
Being complicit in an adultery is an abomination. I have some experience in this. The truth will out in a variety of ways. The most insidious abomination is that the spouse being cheated on just senses in many small ways that something is wrong. But this sense is intuitive, usually has no "evidence" to support it and so the spouse then feels like a jerk for even suspecting his/her partner. When things are finally revealed (and they are almost always revealed) the worst part is feeling additionally stupid for berating oneself for years about feelings that were, after all, correct.
He should tell Jane to leave him out of her lies. Abetting by omission is still, in my book, terrible. But protecting and becoming part of the lie is reprehensible. There has to be some foundation, some tiny piece of solid moral ground, upon which we can stand. fidelity in marriage should be it. Bad call, here, a very bad call.
He should tell Jane to leave him out of her lies. Abetting by omission is still, in my book, terrible. But protecting and becoming part of the lie is reprehensible. There has to be some foundation, some tiny piece of solid moral ground, upon which we can stand. fidelity in marriage should be it. Bad call, here, a very bad call.
23
If a person like me has known the complicated relationship and the moral dilemma, the chances are those involved have known it or will do so soon. In the meantime why not ask a third party to forward this NYT piece to Jane and Peter?
4
I think this one is easy. Jane is clearly wrong. She is trying to have her cake and eat it too. Specifically, she is making no sacrifices whatsoever in terms of her relationship with Martin, Peter, or her career. This is the second marriage that she has jeopardized! So if you assist her by lying to Peter, you are also participating in the wrongful deceit. You even admit to being just as morally slippery as Jane by saying that you think that Jane's affair with Martin "might be good for everybody." Logically, this contradicts your assessment that Peter "would divorce her in a minute" if he found out about the affair.
So buckle up and confront Jane. Either she ends the affair, tells Peter herself, or you exit the situation. If you do not, neither you nor Jane really deserve much respect.
So buckle up and confront Jane. Either she ends the affair, tells Peter herself, or you exit the situation. If you do not, neither you nor Jane really deserve much respect.
16
Everything about this is wrong. Your friend is not having an affair with her "soul mate", she is having a fling twice a year. Soul mates make sacrifices to be together. This is a game for her. To make it worse, she started a second marriage with every intention of being unfaithful. She is a rat. So the first question you must ask yourself is, do you want to have a rat as a friend. And she is now using you as well in her games.
The path of least resistance, which you would probably prefer, is to pretend you know nothing so you have no culpability. But she has made that impossible by manipulating you into lying for her. You can refuse to be used again. Then you will find out just how much she respects your needs in this friendship. Or you can decide to wash your hands of the whole thing and end the friendship. Remember, she is a rat. If the husband asks you why you are no longer friends, you can tell him you do not approve of his wife's behavior but you are not at liberty to disclose what that was, specifically. The chips will then fall where they may. If their marriage ends, it will not be your fault.
The path of least resistance, which you would probably prefer, is to pretend you know nothing so you have no culpability. But she has made that impossible by manipulating you into lying for her. You can refuse to be used again. Then you will find out just how much she respects your needs in this friendship. Or you can decide to wash your hands of the whole thing and end the friendship. Remember, she is a rat. If the husband asks you why you are no longer friends, you can tell him you do not approve of his wife's behavior but you are not at liberty to disclose what that was, specifically. The chips will then fall where they may. If their marriage ends, it will not be your fault.
12
I agree that "Jane" is a rat, for all the reasons Stew mentions. Plus, why did Jane gratuitously ask the letter writer if he'd received photos of her supposed trip in front of Peter? Is she on some kind of narcissistic power trip?
That "soul mate" business is pure nonsense, neurotic excuses she makes up for her deeply unethical behavior.
Peter deserves the truth, but letter writer has a right to refuse to be the truth teller. Why doesn't he have the guts to tell Jane what he thinks of her and break off the friendship?
That "soul mate" business is pure nonsense, neurotic excuses she makes up for her deeply unethical behavior.
Peter deserves the truth, but letter writer has a right to refuse to be the truth teller. Why doesn't he have the guts to tell Jane what he thinks of her and break off the friendship?
6
Name Withheld should detach graciously from Jane and Peter. He might miss them terribly, but he would likely feel much better about himself than he does now.
6
what happens in the iris murdoch novel? does the troubled and problematic moral quagmire of entangled relationships resolve itself into a dreamy dew?
The readers responses were actually more interesting than the column and showed a laudatory amount of non-judgmental common sense; keep your mouth shut to Peter, tell Jane not to bring you into her lies again and then slowly and gently extricate yourself from the entire relationship. Bravo!!
11
I think he needs some new friends with some integrity.
8
When confronted with a moral tangle, consider simplifying. Jane has made you, NW, a co-conspirator in deception. It does not matter if the person she is deceiving is your friend or a stranger. What matters is that her wandering moral compass has now become yours. She has assumed your complicity in supporting her betrayal. If you want to continue the friendship you need to confront her, not her spouse, and set down a few conditions: she cannot expect you to lie on her behalf; and you are not happy with her assumption that you will do so. If you fear her reaction to this, it is a friendship in name only. All the power in this particular relationship is on her side. You might ask yourself why you have allowed it to continue for as long as it has. You might also consider the possibility that someone like Jane uses relationships to offset each other. She chose not just adultery but with someone who is perpetually unavailable. She cannot trust herself or the men in her life to be full partners, so she creates situations in which she can partition her emotional space. Like it or not, staying in this 'friendship' is enabling immoral behavior to continue. Ending it may do you some good, be a wakeup call to Jane, and possibly signal Peter to look more closely at what I am guessing he already suspects.
3
I would draw a distinction between passive knowledge of the affair and actively participating in the cover-up.
That is, do not help corroborate Jane's lies. If she asks whether you received photos that she never texted you, say "no."
That is, do not help corroborate Jane's lies. If she asks whether you received photos that she never texted you, say "no."
3
By definition if one mate is cheating, your marriage has issues. Usually one or both parties know this but dealing with affairs (splitting) isn't always easy (kids, guilt, etc) swell the effected parties. As for telling Peter, NW risks losing one or both of them in his life. Holding Jane's "secret" is one thing. Asking NW to be complicit by lying for her is another (and very wrong) thus confronting her on that doozer opens the door for his other issues. And reality check? Sadly, some people would rather be miserably married than alone (bad choice IMHO!).
1
If the genders were all reversed, the comments would be wildly different.
6
I agree with everyone who says that "Jane" (as presented in the letter) did the wrong thing by asking the writer whether he got photos that he didn't. I can imagine two reasons for this: that she liked making him complicit, or that "Peter" was suspicious and she needed to reassure him. The first is worse than the second, which might have been an act of desperation. But we don't know, since we only have the perspective of one person. Like many, I would ask "Jane" never to put me in that spot again.
5
The Germans have a saying that applies here: "Das ist nicht mein bier," which means roughly "it's none of my business." The intricacies of someone else's marriage should not be parsed by friends and relatives. The only thing I find truly objectionable in this scenario is the narcissistic selfishness of Jane, who expects her dear friend of many years to lie for her. Who she sleeps with and the nature of her relationship with her husband are no one else's business. But pulling her friend into the deceit, and even putting him on the spot in front of the husband, is despicable. I'd wager that the husband knows (on some level) that his wife is unfaithful, and perhaps has decided that he need not know more about it. A relative of mine had a "friend" tell her "for her own good" that the relative's husband had been openly dating other women for years (the couple lived in different cities for work). This was a decades-long marriage, and even though things were never perfect, and the wife had suspected cheating in the past, the couple was making it work. But that "friend" forced the issue. The couple went through an ugly, painful divorce that left an unhappy, lonely ex-wife and an elated ex-husband who soon married one of his girlfriends. So who was that gossipy "friend" helping? I advise loving your friends enough to stay out of their most personal business, and (Jane) respecting them enough not to pull them into anything about which you cannot and will not speak freely, in public.
6
You've answered your own question--and have a justification for future revelations--
"deep inside, I think the affair may be good for everyone. Jane and Peter have a good marriage, and Jane needs this outlet with Martin. Maybe just allowing the lie to roll forward in perpetuity is the best thing."
Read Shakespeare's sonnet 138; sleep well. How can you recommend it to him is the biggest problem.
And if things get fuzzy, remember adultery is adulteration (impure mixtures)--only if lifelong post marital sex is a rational ideal.
Furthermore, adultery is extramarital sex, but in many cultures marriage need not be monogamous.
Even further--adultery need not be infidelity--breach of trust--in "open marriages"--those without promises of monogamous sex.
Even further--often it's the illusion that matter most--as in theater. He probably knows but colludes (plays along) because--as you realize its a good play. And they would both be worse off without it. You too.
Even further--the adultery Mosaic Commandment is part of a primitive ethical code--as is Sharia law. Both go with wives as property. Adulterous woman are disobedient slaves.
But we don't tolerate slavery anymore. Preserve the illusion--you already think it's worth it. And it probably is.
BTW the other man isn't really you, is it? If it is--read the above but be careful.
"deep inside, I think the affair may be good for everyone. Jane and Peter have a good marriage, and Jane needs this outlet with Martin. Maybe just allowing the lie to roll forward in perpetuity is the best thing."
Read Shakespeare's sonnet 138; sleep well. How can you recommend it to him is the biggest problem.
And if things get fuzzy, remember adultery is adulteration (impure mixtures)--only if lifelong post marital sex is a rational ideal.
Furthermore, adultery is extramarital sex, but in many cultures marriage need not be monogamous.
Even further--adultery need not be infidelity--breach of trust--in "open marriages"--those without promises of monogamous sex.
Even further--often it's the illusion that matter most--as in theater. He probably knows but colludes (plays along) because--as you realize its a good play. And they would both be worse off without it. You too.
Even further--the adultery Mosaic Commandment is part of a primitive ethical code--as is Sharia law. Both go with wives as property. Adulterous woman are disobedient slaves.
But we don't tolerate slavery anymore. Preserve the illusion--you already think it's worth it. And it probably is.
BTW the other man isn't really you, is it? If it is--read the above but be careful.
4
Does Jane really have the character of someone you want to be a friend with? Choose your friends carefully--make sure they have the same values and character that you would like to be known for. Have the strength and courage to move-on.
1
No sense of loyalty here.
As a family therapist, the writer’s awareness that the affair may be “good” for everyone in some way is telling. Affairs often serve hidden relational functions. A friend once told me about telling her husband she was having an affair. “I know,” he said. “I’ve tried to stay out of the way.” Her affair meant he didn’t have to try to meet her demands for sex or romance, which were harder for him than being lied to. After they divorced a year or so later, he came out to her as gay. The affair clearly was an outgrowth of his lack of real desire for her- the lie he was hiding that complemented hers. It let my friend have a sexual partner who physically desired her, when her husband couldn't recognize that he did not.
We know nothing of real detail about Jane and Peter, nor can we. Neither we nor the writer really knows if Peter has or had affairs, or if he never wants sex, or if he really wants to be married to Jane anyway. Maybe Jane subliminally hopes he finds out and leaves her. We simply don't know. Affairs aren’t normally morality tales of “betrayal.” One partner may have an affair with stamps or work or alcohol, the other with a person. Few of us ever know enough to make snap ethical judgments.
The writer should tell Jane he won’t lie for her and he’ll have to stop socializing with her and Peter if this all continues. And please tell her to go to therapy. A friend can say that. But Jane and Peter’s marriage is their issue, not his. Stay out.
We know nothing of real detail about Jane and Peter, nor can we. Neither we nor the writer really knows if Peter has or had affairs, or if he never wants sex, or if he really wants to be married to Jane anyway. Maybe Jane subliminally hopes he finds out and leaves her. We simply don't know. Affairs aren’t normally morality tales of “betrayal.” One partner may have an affair with stamps or work or alcohol, the other with a person. Few of us ever know enough to make snap ethical judgments.
The writer should tell Jane he won’t lie for her and he’ll have to stop socializing with her and Peter if this all continues. And please tell her to go to therapy. A friend can say that. But Jane and Peter’s marriage is their issue, not his. Stay out.
10
This is one of the most nuanced, humane and insightful answers ever! You must be a wonderful family therapist.
Marriage folly. Stolen waters taste sweeter—temporarily.
It's like jumping out of the 120th floor of the Empire State Building. You feel great until you hit the ground
We've been there. Done that.
There is much richness in marriage than just sex and stability. Being faithful to one another is one of them. Growing old together another. Enjoying the accomplishments in career and raising decent children and grandchildren, etc.
Suggestions for sexual success have been touted by a lot of social hypocrites.
Years back the book "Open Marriage" came out telling us to share our spouse with others for a better marriage.
Ten years later the same husband and wife team espoused "The New Fidelity" of staying true to one's spouse.
Read the tragically sad case of Simone de Beauvoir and her open relationship with Jean Paul Sartre to realize the deep pain caused by liberal thinkers to each other—mostly other (meaning women).
One women on Joan Hamberger’s radio show told of having an open relationship with fifteen different lovers. She admitted ending up feeling like an empty shell of a zombie.
Most people end up in the spiritual—if not physical—trash can emotionally as well with this kind of arrangement.
This kind of thing just doesn't work with human beings despite the facade of pleasantries presented in front of others.
If their is no love nor fear of God nor commitment then people run after the latest insanity of how to conduct oneself morally—sexual or otherwise.
2
"Moral narcissism is about being more concerned with the cleanliness of your hands than with how your conduct shapes the lives around you."
Moral narcissim???
Thats just plain morality. The idea of man as autonomous being charged with his own morality.
What next. Is it narcissistic not to steal or rape or cheat or murder??because you dont like how it will make you feel?
Moral narcissim???
Thats just plain morality. The idea of man as autonomous being charged with his own morality.
What next. Is it narcissistic not to steal or rape or cheat or murder??because you dont like how it will make you feel?
1
Staying our of someone's affairs may be the right thing to do if there is no victim. However, the husband may have unknowingly contracted an STD because of his wife's behavior. This also goes for the other spouse in the foreign country. They have a right to know. The next time Jane goes on a "business trip" the LW should send an anonymous note to Peter saying that is not where she is. It would be up to him to find out the details and decide what to do about his marriage, If he already knows, then no harm is done. If he doesn't, he has the right to know.
1
I'm a gay New Yorker. You straight people make things way more complicated than you need to. Yeesh.
2
Dan Savage, sex advice columnist for The Stranger, would likely say that the LW's friends are one-sidedly monogomish, if they both knew and agreed to Jane's extramarital affair. However, the LW implies that no such agreement exists. The solution for the LW should be for him to tell "Jane" to not inform him of her actions or include him in discussions that would require for him to actively or passively lie to "Peter" or anyone else. He could consider including consequences for her involving him any future lie, such as ending the friendship. Whether the affair is "good" or not for Jane and Peter as a couple is for them to work out.
1
"Peter does not know about the affair. If he knew about it, I think he would divorce Jane in a minute."
This is all that matters. Jane is using Peter in a way it appears clear to you would appall and repulse him, if he knew. This easily decides the matter. His marriage is a fraud. You must tell him.
This is all that matters. Jane is using Peter in a way it appears clear to you would appall and repulse him, if he knew. This easily decides the matter. His marriage is a fraud. You must tell him.
3
As a student of ethics in college, the most useful principle I learned was: What we ought to do is not relative to the situation. Right and wrong are not relative. Without this principle there is no way to say that one is even discussing ethics. Anything else is just about seeking pleasure or praise and selling out for these and constructing rationalizations.
So I do not think it matters at all who this man is closer to as a friend. Why should he be confused by emotional attachments? The most important thing is to show integrity and respect. These are high values and we ought to seek them in all our decisions, whether they involve our spouses, friends, strangers or enemies.
What would this look like? Why wouldn't this man tell Jane everything he just wrote to the ethicist. Show her the impact of her deceit, self-absorption, and lust.
If I were him, I'd spend my precious short life with people who are cultivating integrity, kindness, and authenticity. I'd probably stop seeing Jane after explaining why, and keep supporting her poor, dear husband.
So I do not think it matters at all who this man is closer to as a friend. Why should he be confused by emotional attachments? The most important thing is to show integrity and respect. These are high values and we ought to seek them in all our decisions, whether they involve our spouses, friends, strangers or enemies.
What would this look like? Why wouldn't this man tell Jane everything he just wrote to the ethicist. Show her the impact of her deceit, self-absorption, and lust.
If I were him, I'd spend my precious short life with people who are cultivating integrity, kindness, and authenticity. I'd probably stop seeing Jane after explaining why, and keep supporting her poor, dear husband.
2
I would not tell Peter, but I would end my friendship with Jane, especially after her "Did you get the pictures" question forced you into complicity. If that's what she does to her husband, what kind of a friend can she be with anyone? I think you should also look carefully at yourself too -- you walked yourself right into this mess.
Joseph in Chetumal
Joseph in Chetumal
4
I wonder, if at some level, NW is enjoying the drama. After all, he knew about the affair even before Jane married Peter and knows it played a role in her first divorce. The difference appears to be that he did not foster a relationship with husband one.
Also, NW withholds some information. What is his marital situation? If he is married or in any type of hetero or gay relationship, how would he feel in Peter's shoes? Suppose his spouse or S/O cheated on him. Would he want to know?
Interesting, too, that he provides information about the fact that Martin is a dad. What about Peter and Jane? Are they parents? Would children make any difference, or should they, in his decision on what to do?
I think NW needs to do a bit of self-examination. Even if he is not attracted to the drama, he might want to look at his friendship with Jane very clearly. She is a user. She used him to deflect Peter's interest in the trip. Maybe Jane is routinely using Peter, too. And NW as a confidant who can be trusted to not have told Peter about the affair with Martin and its destruction of marriage one, never mind what she is doing in marriage two.
Strange friendship if you ask me....
Also, NW withholds some information. What is his marital situation? If he is married or in any type of hetero or gay relationship, how would he feel in Peter's shoes? Suppose his spouse or S/O cheated on him. Would he want to know?
Interesting, too, that he provides information about the fact that Martin is a dad. What about Peter and Jane? Are they parents? Would children make any difference, or should they, in his decision on what to do?
I think NW needs to do a bit of self-examination. Even if he is not attracted to the drama, he might want to look at his friendship with Jane very clearly. She is a user. She used him to deflect Peter's interest in the trip. Maybe Jane is routinely using Peter, too. And NW as a confidant who can be trusted to not have told Peter about the affair with Martin and its destruction of marriage one, never mind what she is doing in marriage two.
Strange friendship if you ask me....
2
Jane is the culprit here for using her friend as a "cover". He should be clear to her that he wants nothing to do with her affair, wants to know nothing about it and her decisions are her own and she does not have the right to involve him.
1
For the sake of your own ethics, I would step back from my friendship with both of these individuals. It is foolish to involve yourself with such intrigues for the sake of what, pleasant company? I'm sure you are able to find others with which to socialize correct? It's not unusual in this day and age for friends to simply "lose touch." I would suggest you do just that.
Appiah just restated, at greater length, the already long letter. Yes, it's a serious pickle--that's why the LW doesn't know what to do. What to do?
Run, do not walk, away from this relationship. Jane sounds like a shallow, manipulative narcissist. Why on earth would you want to be friends with this creature, much less remain loyal to her? Seriously, man. Tell her so long, and ease out of her and Peter's life. "Soul mates." Give me a friggin' break. She's a user. As another commenter wrote, do you really need friends this bad?
2
Stay out of it. And I would ask Jane to keep you out of the loop on any further information about this affair. Wondering though if Peter knew that Martin was in the picture in the previous marriage which is the reason it broke up? I would imagine he does and that is how he ended up with Jane. Messy business. keep back 500 feet.
1
As someone who has been on the sharp edge of this knife, I felt the need to chime in. My husband was having multiple affairs during our 14 yrs of marriage, including one that lasted 6 yrs. He had 3 friends, one of which was our son's godfather, who helped him hide everything because he convinced them he was doing the right thing for everyone and our marriage was better for it?! This is completely deluional and is how they justify their behaviour.
Marriage is based on many core values but the most important one for me is honesty. I am beyond disgusted at my husband's friends for not having warned me that I was living in a lie. I am appalled that his friend went on vacation with us, stayed in our home, etc and all the while he knew and he covered for his lies. There is a minimum of respect you owe any human being, whether they are your best friend or not and knowing that someone is hurting their wife and their children with his frequent absences for "work"..and not doing anything about it is not something I can accept.
I wish I'd known much sooner, for my children and for myself. I no longer have any contact with his friends.
Marriage is based on many core values but the most important one for me is honesty. I am beyond disgusted at my husband's friends for not having warned me that I was living in a lie. I am appalled that his friend went on vacation with us, stayed in our home, etc and all the while he knew and he covered for his lies. There is a minimum of respect you owe any human being, whether they are your best friend or not and knowing that someone is hurting their wife and their children with his frequent absences for "work"..and not doing anything about it is not something I can accept.
I wish I'd known much sooner, for my children and for myself. I no longer have any contact with his friends.
7
This is a painful situation for anyone in the writer position. Friendships are important for us and they certainly end sometimes but it gets harder when one of the persons involve is family.
Not telling is painful and telling will hurt too but what happens when it´s not a friend who is cheating but a brother? Or when the cheated person is your sister, for instance?
I have seen this and in the end not the cheater nor the cheated person will be grateful. At the end they could probably keep their marriage but you will never be seen the same by any of them. No friend or familiy should put you in a situation like that.
Not telling is painful and telling will hurt too but what happens when it´s not a friend who is cheating but a brother? Or when the cheated person is your sister, for instance?
I have seen this and in the end not the cheater nor the cheated person will be grateful. At the end they could probably keep their marriage but you will never be seen the same by any of them. No friend or familiy should put you in a situation like that.
The Writer obviously has become uncomfortable with his role as confidant to Jane about the love triangle she has created.
The Writer has no ethical obligation to entrench himself even more deeply in Jane's infidelity drama by telling Peter. It is not the Writer's place to adjudicate or resolve the mess Jane has created. As the Writer himself wisely observes, Jane and Peter might not even consider it a mess.
The Writer does have an ethical obligation to be true to himself and to be a true friend. That means clarifying for Jane the terms on which he is willing to continue the friendship.
Dear Writer: Simply tell Jane that going forward, you would rather not hear about her relationship with Peter. If she asks why, tell her the simple truth: you are no longer comfortable hearing about it. You have no obligation to tell her more than that. If she persists in talking about Peter, smile and remind her that you would rather not hear about him.
It will then be up to Jane to decide in what way she wants to continue her end of the friendship. She may distance herself or drop you entirely, in which case you will learn that the friendship was not as meaningful as you thought. Or, she may accept the new boundary you have set, in which case you will have crafted a stronger, more honest friendship.
However Jane reacts, Dear Writer, you wll have reclaimed your self-respect. And that is your most important ethical obligation.
The Writer has no ethical obligation to entrench himself even more deeply in Jane's infidelity drama by telling Peter. It is not the Writer's place to adjudicate or resolve the mess Jane has created. As the Writer himself wisely observes, Jane and Peter might not even consider it a mess.
The Writer does have an ethical obligation to be true to himself and to be a true friend. That means clarifying for Jane the terms on which he is willing to continue the friendship.
Dear Writer: Simply tell Jane that going forward, you would rather not hear about her relationship with Peter. If she asks why, tell her the simple truth: you are no longer comfortable hearing about it. You have no obligation to tell her more than that. If she persists in talking about Peter, smile and remind her that you would rather not hear about him.
It will then be up to Jane to decide in what way she wants to continue her end of the friendship. She may distance herself or drop you entirely, in which case you will learn that the friendship was not as meaningful as you thought. Or, she may accept the new boundary you have set, in which case you will have crafted a stronger, more honest friendship.
However Jane reacts, Dear Writer, you wll have reclaimed your self-respect. And that is your most important ethical obligation.
1
Simple: let her know you don't want to be providing "corroborating evidence" of her being on a business trip in the future. And otherwise stay out of it. To the degree you are close to her and can discuss her affair with her, you can make your discomfort known. But that's it. Stay out.
1
One of the tenets of Jainism as I understand it is to "speak only the unhurtful truth", But I'd sure tell Jane "don't weave me into your deception".
One wonders what Jane gets out of engaging the writer in tales of her affair and then conscripting him to silence, in light of his friendship with Peter. Isn't that quite manipulative and disrespectful of the writer? I'm a middle school counselor and when children do this to each other I teach them that they should stand up to the person , with a message that they are not going to keep that "bad secret". Now, in this situation I am not suggesting that the writer reveal the affair because it's not his issue to reveal, however , he should examine his relationship with Jane , because she is using him. She is using him to revel in the secretive affair .Sexuality coupled with prohibition is jucier and she's sharing that high powered juice with the writer, thus increasing her enjoyment. So , what does the writer get out of it except guilt, and the knowledge that Peter will be furious and hurt when he finds out. The writer needs to assert to Jane that he is no longer interested in her affair nor will he be complicit in lies. If Jane ditches him, that says it all about her narcissism. If she respects his boundaries then he retains her friendship and at least, when this comes out ( affairs always do) he can tell Peter that he set the boundary. I'm not too hopeful though , because her manipulating the writer into lying about the Golden Gate Bridge photos indicates that her narcissism will prevail. But it's work a shot.
3
Whoops! I meant to say, in my previous comment, that the Writer should tell Jane that going forward, he would rather not hear about her relationship with Martin. Not Peter.
This situation deeply resonated with me. I was in the same position years ago, right after I graduated from college, with a former roommate.
I'm a woman, and my female roommate got involved with a sweet guy who lived down the hall from us. The relationship eventually became serious. After graduation, she spent an entire summer in Ghana while he stayed behind in California. She had unprotected sex with two Ghanean men in a village known to have high levels of HIV infection and AIDS. When I asked her whether she would tell her boyfriend, she said no. I was wracked with guilt because I also knew that she didn't use condoms when she had sex with her boyfriend because she had an IUD.
I never told him, even though I should have, because I feel that cheating in this case was a life or death situation for him.
A couple of years went by, and my friend slowly stopped responding to my emails and calls. She became cold to me. So I was surprised when in the middle of ignoring me, she asked me to be one of her bridesmaids at their wedding.
My way of dealing with the situation--and my pain at slowly being phased out of her life--was to tell her that I would be unable to be a bridesmaid and attend the wedding. Because I knew that I would feel uncomfortable watching her get married to someone whose life she had put at risk. And because I would also be guilty by proxy. She never spoke to me again.
Looking back, I should have said something. I still wonder if he's ok.
I'm a woman, and my female roommate got involved with a sweet guy who lived down the hall from us. The relationship eventually became serious. After graduation, she spent an entire summer in Ghana while he stayed behind in California. She had unprotected sex with two Ghanean men in a village known to have high levels of HIV infection and AIDS. When I asked her whether she would tell her boyfriend, she said no. I was wracked with guilt because I also knew that she didn't use condoms when she had sex with her boyfriend because she had an IUD.
I never told him, even though I should have, because I feel that cheating in this case was a life or death situation for him.
A couple of years went by, and my friend slowly stopped responding to my emails and calls. She became cold to me. So I was surprised when in the middle of ignoring me, she asked me to be one of her bridesmaids at their wedding.
My way of dealing with the situation--and my pain at slowly being phased out of her life--was to tell her that I would be unable to be a bridesmaid and attend the wedding. Because I knew that I would feel uncomfortable watching her get married to someone whose life she had put at risk. And because I would also be guilty by proxy. She never spoke to me again.
Looking back, I should have said something. I still wonder if he's ok.
5
We only have one side of the story and one perception of it. There are two other sides (at least) we don't have, and certainly varying perceptions. Making a moral judgment absent these is premature. Indeed even feeling prompted to make a moral judgment on this basis is inappropriate, because the other sides are not being proffered inadvertently or willingly. And expressing such a judgment by divulging "secrets" will not have entirely predictable consequences for everyone. This is clearly a case of minding your own business.
I have a different impression of this. I think Peter and Jane are messing with Letter Writer's head. The game Jane played at dinner, bringing up her Golden Gate pictures feels like they are both toying with him to see what his response will be. It sounds like Jane misses middle school drama way too much.
1
Jane is no friend, for dragging you into her lies.
I personally would treat the relationship with Jane as professional if ongoing contact is unavoidable, but eliminate the socializing. To Jane's husband, you were no longer his friend once you joined in the lie, stop socializing.
No this does not solve their problem, but they caused it and they are not asking for your help to solve it. Solve your problem by walking away as much as possible.
I personally would treat the relationship with Jane as professional if ongoing contact is unavoidable, but eliminate the socializing. To Jane's husband, you were no longer his friend once you joined in the lie, stop socializing.
No this does not solve their problem, but they caused it and they are not asking for your help to solve it. Solve your problem by walking away as much as possible.
1
The writer does quite a lot of moral tap dancing here to make himself feel better about lying through his teeth. If he convinces himself that it is all for the best, that apparently absolves him of his fault. Quite acrobatic, really.
Bottom line: Lying to Jane's husband is not okay. Lying because he has known Jane for longer than her husband and prefers Jane to him does not make it any better.
What a terrible position his friend put him in! At the very least, the writer needs to tell Jane to never, ever again ask him to lie to her husband about her whereabouts on affair weekends. He needs to tell her that next time she does this, he will not back her up. If Jane were my friend and had put me into that situation, I would seriously re-evaluate my friendship with her, and likely walk away. Of course, I might have already walked away, given her penchant for deception and self-involvement.
As an aside, why do Jane's or Martin's careers mean they "cannot be together"? There are many relationships where people choose romantic partners or family over career. I suspect that this justification is really Jane's, and she soothes herself with this lie. If Martin wanted to be with her full time, he would be. Perhaps the truth is that Martin has a "soul mate" in every port.
Bottom line: Lying to Jane's husband is not okay. Lying because he has known Jane for longer than her husband and prefers Jane to him does not make it any better.
What a terrible position his friend put him in! At the very least, the writer needs to tell Jane to never, ever again ask him to lie to her husband about her whereabouts on affair weekends. He needs to tell her that next time she does this, he will not back her up. If Jane were my friend and had put me into that situation, I would seriously re-evaluate my friendship with her, and likely walk away. Of course, I might have already walked away, given her penchant for deception and self-involvement.
As an aside, why do Jane's or Martin's careers mean they "cannot be together"? There are many relationships where people choose romantic partners or family over career. I suspect that this justification is really Jane's, and she soothes herself with this lie. If Martin wanted to be with her full time, he would be. Perhaps the truth is that Martin has a "soul mate" in every port.
3
I'm baffled that you can stand to be around either Jane or her husband. By cornering you into lying to deceive her husband, Jane is no friend. And when you are out shooting pool and having beers with Jane's husband, how can you think about anything else other than Jane's affair? Don't you go mad keeping that secret in when you are hangin' with him? Don't you go home conflicted and wracked with guilt over your pretense? As I see it, your relationship with Jane's husband is doomed - damned if you do, damned if you don't. You should just write that one off before Jane pulls you even further into her deception. And Jane, she is no friend. She likes playing games. She likes getting away with her affair for all these years and probably rationalizes that if her husband does not know, she is not hurting him. She gets a cheap thrill out of unnecessarily putting you on the spot as though to test your fidelity to her. She unnecessarily revealed her affair to you with no regard to the social peril it put you in. Think about it: why would she tell you, and risk her marriage, if not to just selfishly heighten the thrill she gets from her affair? I have a lot of friends and I cannot fathom any of them behaving this way.
2
Re the photos question. She wanted him to share her burden of guilt so she could justify herself by saying he lied too. She's no friend.
1
I would leave behind the friend who expected me to hide his or her affair. "Affair" is too pretty a word for the willingness to hurt that is necessary for cheating. I don't need such a cold-hearted friend.
1
NW is a fledgling novelist, whose real initials, by a strange quirk of fate, happen to be NW. She is offering this recently concocted scenario, destined to be the core of the novel she's working on, to the Ethicist and the Ethicist's readers in the hope of gaining insights, angles, plot devices, twists and turns that she can then assign to various major and minor characters in her novel.
The real problem is how much energy this person has put into Jane's affair. The letter alone was exhausting. It's a non issue. If you feel uncomfortable end the friendship if not keep your mouth shut because it has nothing to do with you- it's a Jane and Peter problem. If Jane tries to drag you into her deception shut her down, she'll quickly understand that a line has been drawn and she's in no position to cross it.
1
It's a tough spot to be in. FWIW I don't think NW has an obligation to blow the whistle. I don't buy the argument that he owes it to society--this discreet affair probably doesn't warrant risking the destruction of what sounds like a stable married partnership. NW should, however, take note that Jane is behaving in ways that indicate she has "settled" for her current situation, is apparently stuck in a pattern that involves deceiving others, probably doesn't believe she can be honest about it with her husband, and is fooling herself if she thinks it is OK to have placed NW in this dilemma. In other words, it sounds like she is more messed up than NW, and he may not be able to fully relate to what is driving the dynamic, which makes it riskier for him to take action. All that said, there are, in my view, different ways to be married and stay married, and some of them are frowned on--but that doesn't mean they are actually less functional. Recommended: the movie/play "Same Time Next Year."
This story brings to mind Oscar Wilde's comment on the subject: "The essence of romance is it's uncertainty" Jane is clearly delusional and someone in this state can't judge "soulmatishness." Writer, you are enabling the delusional yet comprehend loyalty better. Weigh the opportunity costs of this friendship with Jane.
to name withheld: When Jane cornered you (and that's what it was, manipulation) into supporting her lie, with the bridge photos, the thing to do at that moment would have been to say, "No, I didn't get those photos." and let it drop at that. She could have mumbled something about unreliable technology, or whatever.
THEN, at the first opportunity, take her aside and lay down the law. She cannot use you to foster her deception. That is not what friends do. She is no friend of yours. She is a manipulator who plays on people's guilt trips. She's playing on your loyalty now.
I would withdraw from the relationship with her and focus on your friendship with Peter. If she steps out of line again, call her on it. Insist she come clean to her husband while you are present.
As long as you were not a party to her deception you were not truly involved. But now she has involved you. The rules have changed. It's up to you to protect yourself.
THEN, at the first opportunity, take her aside and lay down the law. She cannot use you to foster her deception. That is not what friends do. She is no friend of yours. She is a manipulator who plays on people's guilt trips. She's playing on your loyalty now.
I would withdraw from the relationship with her and focus on your friendship with Peter. If she steps out of line again, call her on it. Insist she come clean to her husband while you are present.
As long as you were not a party to her deception you were not truly involved. But now she has involved you. The rules have changed. It's up to you to protect yourself.
She has the right to do what she wants do
You have the right to do what you want to do
I have the right to do what I want to do
Simple But Egual
You have the right to do what you want to do
I have the right to do what I want to do
Simple But Egual
Just tell me one thing: why is adultery always, incontrovertibly bad and wrong? This, to me, is a very binary way of looking at things -- a typically American way, pardon me for saying so. It's this whole idea of human beings "belonging" exclusively to each other, as if people were property or possessions. Even the ethicist here pronounces "adultery is wrong" in his answer, and I just don't get why. What's happening here, anyway? So she meets this guy twice a year, and instead of hanging out having coffee, they have sex. It brings them closer, it gives them joy, and their spouses are not hurt. So why the judgement? Why is this friend so bothered by it?
For starters, if it's so wonderful, why did it lead to the death of marriage #1 and why would it surely lead to the death of marriage #2. Not divorce, rather call it what it would be, death of a marriage. So who exactly is it wonderful for,
I think you should not tell Peter. It's for Jane to tell Peter. This is her mess, her problem, and it should not be yours. You did nothing wrong. I also think you should refuse to participate in Jane's lying. You should tell her not to involve you, because you will not pretend to have seen her non-existent photos if she tries to pull you in. If Jane persists in trying to corner you into lying for her, then it's probably time to end your friendship with Jane.
3
Love the illustration! That woman is trouble.
2
The whole concept of "the ethicist," that you can objectively judge a situation, is wrong. You write, "Nobody really knows what’s going on in anybody else’s marriage," and that is the truest thing in the article. The right response to these facts can't ever be given, because only the individuals themselves, in their hearts of hearts, know what is right. It is tempting to believe that one can unravel a moral dilemma by just looking at the facts of the situation, but this can never make sense. If someone is clambering into a lifeboat, it just may be right to smack him in the head with an oar, because he may be Hitler. Only the people there who are actually involved can ever really know the score.
1
I would have a chat with Jane about her affair and inquire whether she feels I need to know about it. And if so, what my role should be whenever the matter comes up between her and Peter. If she feels that I need to play along with her I would suggest that would be a position that I would not accept. If we are friends then she should respect our friendship by not involving me in her extra-marital affair. If she seeks my advice I recommend that she seek counselling instead of unilaterally having me engaged as a cover for her affair.
I note there wasn't a mention of children of the marriage. In this case the moral dimension involves one protagonist (Jane), a co-star (Martin) and a "cornnuto" (Peter).
The question of my role as supporting actor appears to be in conflict within the morality play. In the end, I suggest that Jane's need to have bi-annual sex with Martin - her soulmate, maybe frivolous risk-taking that may result in unexpected consequences that she may pause to reflect - with her counselor.
Finally, the moral position I take should not be compromised by "friendship". If Jane were truly my friend, she would not involve me in her extra-marital gossip and cover-stories to enlist me to help fool my friend Peter. When our friendship is compromised its time to fix the problem or end the friendship.
I note there wasn't a mention of children of the marriage. In this case the moral dimension involves one protagonist (Jane), a co-star (Martin) and a "cornnuto" (Peter).
The question of my role as supporting actor appears to be in conflict within the morality play. In the end, I suggest that Jane's need to have bi-annual sex with Martin - her soulmate, maybe frivolous risk-taking that may result in unexpected consequences that she may pause to reflect - with her counselor.
Finally, the moral position I take should not be compromised by "friendship". If Jane were truly my friend, she would not involve me in her extra-marital gossip and cover-stories to enlist me to help fool my friend Peter. When our friendship is compromised its time to fix the problem or end the friendship.
It may be stating the obvious to point out that the first requirement in considering an action is that it must be something one can, actually, do. Having said that it becomes apparent that once someone perceives that they can, in fact, do something they then immediately will consider doing it. The writer has no direct involvement in this affair, he just happens to know about it which allows him the possibility of action. I say, forget about it! Not your business. Move on to consider taking action in matters that concern you and yours. Do we all not have enough to do in our own lives without casually (and with little to no jeopardy) dropping bombs into others' lives just because we can?
Peter, i would guess, already has his suspicions. Otherwise Jane wouldn't try to impress on the author about the Golden gate photos.
Its best for the author to remain silent, and let Jane and Peter figure/work out their marriage.
Its best for the author to remain silent, and let Jane and Peter figure/work out their marriage.
I'd say you have a somewhat narcissistic and manipulative friend in Jane and that this fact should inform your decision whether or not to remain friends with her. The most ethical thing to do in this situation is to tell her how you feel and distance yourself. You might still be friends with her husband then, with, as you say, clean hands.
What if your "best friend" was feeding poison to her spouse?
You have an obligation to Peter, as he is a human being, to inform him that he is being violated.
It is not you who is betraying Jane. It is Jane who is betraying you, Peter, and herself.
I admit, it would take a true man to make the sacrifice of losing two friends to save another from harm.
It is a sad day for civilzation when friendship is deemed more important than saving someone from the abuse of someone violating their deepest trust.
If your friend was a therapist and breaching patients' confidentiality, would you not have a duty to warn the patients? A marriage is just as deep a commitment as a therapist-patient relationship.
You have an obligation to Peter, as he is a human being, to inform him that he is being violated.
It is not you who is betraying Jane. It is Jane who is betraying you, Peter, and herself.
I admit, it would take a true man to make the sacrifice of losing two friends to save another from harm.
It is a sad day for civilzation when friendship is deemed more important than saving someone from the abuse of someone violating their deepest trust.
If your friend was a therapist and breaching patients' confidentiality, would you not have a duty to warn the patients? A marriage is just as deep a commitment as a therapist-patient relationship.
3
I was close to the woman married to my husband's brother. My sister in law. We are Americans the brothers are English. Our marriages were difficult for similar reasons. We often commiserated. I divorced first. They lived abroad at the time. Her marriage got much worse. Then the brother-in-law stayed at my house on a visit to the states. Whilst there he went out for the night and I noticed a pile of papers he'd left in haste by the table. They were love letters from his mistress, a floozy, well known to all of us. Now she was with my brother in law, discussing why he should dump his wife and live with her and their soon to be born child.
What to do? I thought this over A LOT. Eventually I decided her marriage was so rotten and unhappy that she needed the dignity of knowing this first and striking first rather than the two of them plotting together against her. I told her over the phone very carefully. They eventually divorced over that and probably much else. She moved back to America, he got a new girlfriend and several girlfriends later remarried and had another child. Now I wonder - should I have said anything? He obviously wasn't interested in the floozy. The pregnancy was an 'accident' and he never had a relationship with her again. Is it possible she would have been brushed under the rug, payments to the child made and the marriage saved? I have to think the parentage would have come out as she WAS known to all of us but still...I wonder if I should have kept quiet.
What to do? I thought this over A LOT. Eventually I decided her marriage was so rotten and unhappy that she needed the dignity of knowing this first and striking first rather than the two of them plotting together against her. I told her over the phone very carefully. They eventually divorced over that and probably much else. She moved back to America, he got a new girlfriend and several girlfriends later remarried and had another child. Now I wonder - should I have said anything? He obviously wasn't interested in the floozy. The pregnancy was an 'accident' and he never had a relationship with her again. Is it possible she would have been brushed under the rug, payments to the child made and the marriage saved? I have to think the parentage would have come out as she WAS known to all of us but still...I wonder if I should have kept quiet.
Wash your hands before they get any dirtier.
2
As a friend to Jane, can you suggest that she end the affair? And if she really loves Peter, there is a deeper and deeper level of mutual love that can be attained by mutual commitment. That could be more rewarding than her affair twice a year. No one is perfect. No one person is a perfect fit. Commitment is a choice. By the way, if Jane chooses that path, I recommend a fresh start without her telling Peter of the affair. Just be done with it.
Ethical Changes Over Time:
#1. This woman that you call a friend has not shown herself to be worthy of a good friendship, knowing her character, are you having some more desires for her/becoming a part of her wild character/some action for yourself? If none of this exists, dump this unethical person unless lack of ethics is also a part of your character.
#2. If the woman has any respect for the men, she should really be truthful and let both men know the situation(it is possible to love more than 1 person in a carnal way.) Break it to the husband gently and see if the marriage can be saved. Being open and ethical is what an ethical person would do. More modern people are accepting new ways of gaining happiness. Traditional marriages are not the only way to achieve happiness. Unethical cheating is a sure way to destroy trust.
#3. If the cheating is a part of the drive for this woman and you have a "thing" for her, get wild with it unless you also have a spouse that you do not want to break with or include also. Extra-marital sex is "in" but can be dangerous.
Summary: Be totally ethical and out of it or be mature modern and force it into the open or widen your scope.
#1. This woman that you call a friend has not shown herself to be worthy of a good friendship, knowing her character, are you having some more desires for her/becoming a part of her wild character/some action for yourself? If none of this exists, dump this unethical person unless lack of ethics is also a part of your character.
#2. If the woman has any respect for the men, she should really be truthful and let both men know the situation(it is possible to love more than 1 person in a carnal way.) Break it to the husband gently and see if the marriage can be saved. Being open and ethical is what an ethical person would do. More modern people are accepting new ways of gaining happiness. Traditional marriages are not the only way to achieve happiness. Unethical cheating is a sure way to destroy trust.
#3. If the cheating is a part of the drive for this woman and you have a "thing" for her, get wild with it unless you also have a spouse that you do not want to break with or include also. Extra-marital sex is "in" but can be dangerous.
Summary: Be totally ethical and out of it or be mature modern and force it into the open or widen your scope.
Friends come and go throughout life. The answer is simple: do what is right, as that is what you have to live with the rest of your life.
What does Jane or anyone think a 'soul mate' is, and what does that matter if Martin is never going to leave his wife and family?
In the end, the writer must consider the devastating impact this adultery will have on their spouses and on Martin's children when the adultery is inevitably discovered. The right thing to do for those being harmed is to tell Jane that she must either end the relationship with Martin or divorce Peter. If she refuses, then the writer must tell Peter. If that means losing Jane as a friend, then so be it, no big loss.
What does Jane or anyone think a 'soul mate' is, and what does that matter if Martin is never going to leave his wife and family?
In the end, the writer must consider the devastating impact this adultery will have on their spouses and on Martin's children when the adultery is inevitably discovered. The right thing to do for those being harmed is to tell Jane that she must either end the relationship with Martin or divorce Peter. If she refuses, then the writer must tell Peter. If that means losing Jane as a friend, then so be it, no big loss.
1
I was "Peter," the cuckold, for almost two years, more than 20 years ago. The marriage wasn't good at that point, obviously, and the situation was very complicated by a web of long and close friendships, including mine with my wife's paramour. At least one of my friends knew of the affair but did not tell me, thinking, she later told me, that the marriage might mend. But to this day, I wish my friend had told me; I think that knowing early on could have saved me a lot of damage. I understand why she didn't tell me and we are still good friends. Very human, ugly mess. I still have dreams about it. But I must say, I don't know for sure what I would do were I the letter-writer.
18
Maybe "Jane's" husband reads the New York Times and this
will all be resolved one way or another. Do keep us posted.
will all be resolved one way or another. Do keep us posted.
2
What are the moral problems here?
1) Jane’s cheating is wrong
2) Peter needs this information to properly judge whether or not he should be in a relationship with Jane.
3) The unnamed writer should not break Jane’s confidence with him by telling Peter about Jane’s affair.
Solution:
Unnamed writer should lie and tell Jane that while she was away he caught Peter cheating with another woman.
In the subsequent conversions between Jane and Peter, Jane will admit to Peter her own affair one way or another.
1) Jane will realize why it is wrong to cheat by being on the other side of the equation.
2) Peter gets the information he needs
3) Unnamed writer’s hands will be clean because his lie to Jane is no worse than the lie she wants unnamed writer to tell to Peter.
1) Jane’s cheating is wrong
2) Peter needs this information to properly judge whether or not he should be in a relationship with Jane.
3) The unnamed writer should not break Jane’s confidence with him by telling Peter about Jane’s affair.
Solution:
Unnamed writer should lie and tell Jane that while she was away he caught Peter cheating with another woman.
In the subsequent conversions between Jane and Peter, Jane will admit to Peter her own affair one way or another.
1) Jane will realize why it is wrong to cheat by being on the other side of the equation.
2) Peter gets the information he needs
3) Unnamed writer’s hands will be clean because his lie to Jane is no worse than the lie she wants unnamed writer to tell to Peter.
At my age, I've seen an awful lot of cheating going on through the decades and never once have I heard of a man who has told his buddy's wife that he was cheating on her. This guy should ask himself what he would do if it was Peter who was his long time friend and the one doing the cheating.
Personally, I'd make it clear that I'd be having nothing to do with it, but I'd stay out of it. If it were bothersome to me, I'd distance myself from them. If this guy tells Peter, the friendship is over anyway, so what difference would it make? MYOB
Personally, I'd make it clear that I'd be having nothing to do with it, but I'd stay out of it. If it were bothersome to me, I'd distance myself from them. If this guy tells Peter, the friendship is over anyway, so what difference would it make? MYOB
1
1. Do not tell Jane's husband. You do not know for a fact what he does or does not know. 2. Tell Jane if she values your friendship, she must please stop telling you anything more about her longstanding affair, because her doing so puts you in an untenable position. Her expecting you to support her lies to her husband is unfair to you, and you refuse to lie for her. 3. Think about distancing yourself from Jane, and spending your free time with other friends.
2
I don't understand why he played along with Jane's ploy about the Golden Gate Bridge texts, why didn't he say he didn't receive them? Jane made him complicit in her deceit of her husband.
I'd confront Jane about the text and making it clear to never ask me to lie again; I'd also tell her if Peter were to ever question me about her fidelity I'd refer him to her for an explanation.
I'd confront Jane about the text and making it clear to never ask me to lie again; I'd also tell her if Peter were to ever question me about her fidelity I'd refer him to her for an explanation.
1
They see each other ONCE or TWICE a year?????? And this is an affair? They don't even live in the same country. She can delude herself by saying they are "soul mates" but you can concoct any kind of fantasy about someone that you don't live with or spend any kind of significant amount of time with. It sounds like Jane has a fantasy that she indulges in once a year. It's not worth worrying about one way or another.
1
Three things:
1. Jane cheats on ALL the men in her life, including NW. She showed she had him wrapped around her finger by telling him of her long-time, marriage-straddling infidelity and reinforced her control by getting NW to lie about the pics. Even if he tells Peter, why now?! NW was complicit all this time. Actually, the time to tell Peter would've been before the marriage.
2. "Someone told my mom that my dad was cheating. She wasn't ready to hear it or face it, and was so humiliated to know that other people knew, that she left him and had no job, no education, and no way to support three kids. It destroyed our family much worse than if she had been allowed to open her eyes at her own pace. I will never forgive that person..."
The above is classic deflection. If your dad wasn't cheating on your mom, there would'nt have been anything to tell so blame your dad for destroying your family and stop shooting the messenger.
3. NW should stay friends with Jane but not because, as some commentors state, you don't throw away friends because nobody is perfect. Rather, with their faulty morals, they deserve each other. NW knows Jane better emotionally better than Peter, Martin and ex-hubby and maybe a part of him gets off on that.
1. Jane cheats on ALL the men in her life, including NW. She showed she had him wrapped around her finger by telling him of her long-time, marriage-straddling infidelity and reinforced her control by getting NW to lie about the pics. Even if he tells Peter, why now?! NW was complicit all this time. Actually, the time to tell Peter would've been before the marriage.
2. "Someone told my mom that my dad was cheating. She wasn't ready to hear it or face it, and was so humiliated to know that other people knew, that she left him and had no job, no education, and no way to support three kids. It destroyed our family much worse than if she had been allowed to open her eyes at her own pace. I will never forgive that person..."
The above is classic deflection. If your dad wasn't cheating on your mom, there would'nt have been anything to tell so blame your dad for destroying your family and stop shooting the messenger.
3. NW should stay friends with Jane but not because, as some commentors state, you don't throw away friends because nobody is perfect. Rather, with their faulty morals, they deserve each other. NW knows Jane better emotionally better than Peter, Martin and ex-hubby and maybe a part of him gets off on that.
Personally, I don't equate sexual fidelity with emotional fidelity. I think people pay too much attention to sexuality. I suspect Jane has a strong emotional attachment to the man she's having an affair with, and if that's true, that's a bigger issue than the sex - to me at least. Either way, it isn't the writer's business to disclose his friend's sexual trysts.
My mom cheated on my dad. Her lover is dead now, but she still complains about my dad, even though she's still with him. I used to ask friends for advice about what to do, and they would vehemently take one side or the other. "Oh my god, stay out of it", or "OMG you have to tell your dad." I've learned that the advice I got reflected more the personality of the advice-giver than anything else. I did try to give my dad hints, but he didn't pick up on them.
Whenever I get a chance to talk to my mom alone, however, I challenge her on integrating her shadow self, becoming a whole person that decides what she needs in life, takes responsibility for those needs instead of complaining about not getting them and slinking around behind Dad's back. I challenge my mom to become the strong woman she needs to be to go after what makes her happy instead of lying. A cheater is just someone who doesn't want to grow up and integrate the contents at the next level of consciousness. But in order to give sermons on growing up, you have to be on your own integrating path, aware of your own shadow. Living a life of integrity to your true self is the toughest path, but the most worthwhile one.
Whenever I get a chance to talk to my mom alone, however, I challenge her on integrating her shadow self, becoming a whole person that decides what she needs in life, takes responsibility for those needs instead of complaining about not getting them and slinking around behind Dad's back. I challenge my mom to become the strong woman she needs to be to go after what makes her happy instead of lying. A cheater is just someone who doesn't want to grow up and integrate the contents at the next level of consciousness. But in order to give sermons on growing up, you have to be on your own integrating path, aware of your own shadow. Living a life of integrity to your true self is the toughest path, but the most worthwhile one.
1
Why not watch a film with Peter about a woman involved in a similar situation to Peter's wife and use it as pretext for a dialog on the issue. Of course what he says may be quite different than how he feels if he were to find out his wife is engaged in a long-standing affair, but it'd be interesting.
1
When we were just out of college, one of my best friends and former suitemates embarked on an affair with Mr. X, a man who was (1) 25 years older than she, (2) on his second marriage, with three teenage kids (so not much younger than my friend) from the first marriage, and two young kids from the second, (3) a name partner at the law firm where she worked as a paralegal within his chain of command (about 6 levels below him), and (4) a mean, abusive S.O.B. who terrified all of the lawyers (even junior partners) and most of the support staff who reported to him. (He was generally nice to my friend.)
I tried to take the position of "don't judge." But I suspect I couldn't help showing my discomfort when she regaled me with tales of her fabulous weekends in Amagansett with him; when she provided me with details about playing with his young children as "Daddy's assistant at work"; when she confided that one of his teenager daughters was suspicious and hostile, and so on.
Meanwhile, I'd come to realize I was gay, came out to her, and found her response disappointingly cool. She came from one of those old-guard Manhattan families, & I suppose she couldn't help projecting a certain discomfort just as I had. Of course, I'd done nothing wrong, and nothing to hurt anyone.
We drifted apart. I've felt guilty ever since. Reading this makes me think that instinctively I did the right thing, even though I'd decided, perhaps with an immature hyper-rationality, to do the opposite.
I tried to take the position of "don't judge." But I suspect I couldn't help showing my discomfort when she regaled me with tales of her fabulous weekends in Amagansett with him; when she provided me with details about playing with his young children as "Daddy's assistant at work"; when she confided that one of his teenager daughters was suspicious and hostile, and so on.
Meanwhile, I'd come to realize I was gay, came out to her, and found her response disappointingly cool. She came from one of those old-guard Manhattan families, & I suppose she couldn't help projecting a certain discomfort just as I had. Of course, I'd done nothing wrong, and nothing to hurt anyone.
We drifted apart. I've felt guilty ever since. Reading this makes me think that instinctively I did the right thing, even though I'd decided, perhaps with an immature hyper-rationality, to do the opposite.
1
This dilemma is not an ethical one. It is like chess puzzle, where you are planning a move on a momentarily stagnant set-up of pieces on a chess board where most figures have been captured, this is the end game with a queen, a king, a bishop and a knight.
If there is inner struggle, then it's not ethical. Ethics is clear, commanding, and you can't sass back to it. You save your child from the fire. You withstand torture to not betray your comrades. You steal bread to feed your family. You grab a gun to defend your nation.
If you waddle, it shows that you are not obeying any ethical rules, but rather that you want to circumvent some ethical rules.
There is a lot of waddling on in this article. "You should sacrifice the bishop if you capture the queen in the exchange. Think: if your friendship with the bishop is longer than with the knight, then for crying out loud, help the bishop, not the knight."
One must not discount the value of the advice given in the article, however. The advice is hugely pragmatic, and hence, useful. It has nothing to do with ethics, but it makes sense, it is workable and gives guidance to a thinker who is otherwise stuck.
If there is inner struggle, then it's not ethical. Ethics is clear, commanding, and you can't sass back to it. You save your child from the fire. You withstand torture to not betray your comrades. You steal bread to feed your family. You grab a gun to defend your nation.
If you waddle, it shows that you are not obeying any ethical rules, but rather that you want to circumvent some ethical rules.
There is a lot of waddling on in this article. "You should sacrifice the bishop if you capture the queen in the exchange. Think: if your friendship with the bishop is longer than with the knight, then for crying out loud, help the bishop, not the knight."
One must not discount the value of the advice given in the article, however. The advice is hugely pragmatic, and hence, useful. It has nothing to do with ethics, but it makes sense, it is workable and gives guidance to a thinker who is otherwise stuck.
Good friends and mature adults should have learned long ago that to be discrete is an asset in our culture. Remaining discrete is not a coverup, nor is it a betrayal of a dear friend. It is a judgment that among other things, one should not involve oneself in the most private, indeed intimate aspects of other's lives. The writer ("I") would be well-advised to steer clear of disclosing what he has learned in confidence to the other party. If this is too painful in a mixed social setting, you should no longer socialize with these friends as a threesome. You are in a no-win situation. You have the right to remain silent and anything you say will be used against you.
4
The answer is no.
1
To all the people saying MYOB and a marriage is "between two people," you are seriously missing the point that when ONE of the TWO is actively deceiving the other, they are not equally privy to what is going on.. and the affair is not "between" them, it's being hidden from one of them. An "open marriage" or polyamory is something completely different from and outright lie. The writer specifically stated he knew that Peter would divorce Jane if he knew. So where where where do you get this idea that "Peter knows," or Peter is also probably cheating. Those are facts not in this story.
7
I think Name Withheld needs to think seriously about whether there is any kind of romantic connection between himself and Jane. Infidelity comes when people's need for attention and affection is so bottomless they keep seeking it when they already have their fair share. One procures partners for infidelity by erasing the boundaries in one's relationships, and seeing who reciprocates.
By telling NW all about all of this for so long, and by drawing him into it with the San Francisco lie, Jane has eliminated boundaries in that friendship, and advertised herself to NW as someone willing and able to have a discreet affair. NW seems not to have discouraged this. I suspect Jane might be in the market for an extracurricular partner who can give her more than a weekend or two a year, and I suspect NW's request for ethical guidance might really be a (subconscious?) request for permission to continue his own inappropriate friendship with his Quirky Intellectual Buddy... who has more in common with him than she does with her own husband...
By telling NW all about all of this for so long, and by drawing him into it with the San Francisco lie, Jane has eliminated boundaries in that friendship, and advertised herself to NW as someone willing and able to have a discreet affair. NW seems not to have discouraged this. I suspect Jane might be in the market for an extracurricular partner who can give her more than a weekend or two a year, and I suspect NW's request for ethical guidance might really be a (subconscious?) request for permission to continue his own inappropriate friendship with his Quirky Intellectual Buddy... who has more in common with him than she does with her own husband...
7
Peter will find out. When Jane wants him to. Perhaps this week.
1
Appropriate response: No, I didn't receive any photos. Hey, isn't that the weekend you shacked up with so-and-so?
1
I'd find a new friend. End of comment.
4
You should have responded to the text question with, "No, I must have missed it.". Her attempt to make you an active accomplice in her deception was unfair to you.
6
Sorry-- pushed send too quickly -- in English
Michael from LA's point "You can tell your friend Jane that you feel uncomfortable lying for her, so she needs to leave you out of conversations or stratagems related to her affair." Is a good first step but needs to go further if the writer is looking for a way out of this ethical dilemma and the ability to face husband Peter later. The writer must also tell Jane that if she wishes to remain friends with him she must reconsider her affair and her lying and seek some marriage counseling. Whatever course she takes however, the affair cannot be part of ANY further conversations or it will end the writer's friendship with Jane immediately as he does not wish to be complicit in these actions. In this way, the friendship with Jane can remain intact, and should Peter come to the writer later he can honestly say 1) He knew, 2) But he also advised her to end it X years ago and seek counseling 3) He told her any more discussion about it would end his friendship with Jane immediately and 4) As far as he knew, it ended there.
Michael from LA's point "You can tell your friend Jane that you feel uncomfortable lying for her, so she needs to leave you out of conversations or stratagems related to her affair." Is a good first step but needs to go further if the writer is looking for a way out of this ethical dilemma and the ability to face husband Peter later. The writer must also tell Jane that if she wishes to remain friends with him she must reconsider her affair and her lying and seek some marriage counseling. Whatever course she takes however, the affair cannot be part of ANY further conversations or it will end the writer's friendship with Jane immediately as he does not wish to be complicit in these actions. In this way, the friendship with Jane can remain intact, and should Peter come to the writer later he can honestly say 1) He knew, 2) But he also advised her to end it X years ago and seek counseling 3) He told her any more discussion about it would end his friendship with Jane immediately and 4) As far as he knew, it ended there.
To snitch or not to snitch.
Such questions which preoccupy the modern day primate.
Such questions which preoccupy the modern day primate.
First order of business: Tell Jane that she better not ever put you on the spot like she did with the question about the faux Golden Gate Bridge text again or you will blurt out the truth right then and there. I am stunned that he hasn't already pulled her aside to upbraid her for such an obvious betrayal of their friendship. It's one thing to expect a friend to keep a confidence. It's quite another to incite them to actively lie.
Second order of business: Get thee to a therapist and figure out whether you care to continue the friendship with Jane. She seems like a piece of work. I personally would need to end the relationship because it needlessly complicates my life. And on my way out the door, I might tell Peter the truth. Jane's unfaithfulness isn't a bug, it's a feature of their marriage, and it predates the marriage itself. He deserves to know so that he can make a choice about his own life. My belief that he would divorce her in a minute if he knew would further buttress my decision to let him know. It suggests that Peter would not have agreed to this marriage if he'd known his wife already had a lover (the love of her life, no less) whom she planned to keep. He should have a chance to cut his losses and move on.
Second order of business: Get thee to a therapist and figure out whether you care to continue the friendship with Jane. She seems like a piece of work. I personally would need to end the relationship because it needlessly complicates my life. And on my way out the door, I might tell Peter the truth. Jane's unfaithfulness isn't a bug, it's a feature of their marriage, and it predates the marriage itself. He deserves to know so that he can make a choice about his own life. My belief that he would divorce her in a minute if he knew would further buttress my decision to let him know. It suggests that Peter would not have agreed to this marriage if he'd known his wife already had a lover (the love of her life, no less) whom she planned to keep. He should have a chance to cut his losses and move on.
3
Tell "Jane" that she should not use you to cover for her lies. If she refuses to do that, she is not a good friend to you.
10
I wouldn't report her "crime". But I might avoid more friendship with Peter and also their dinner parties. It's one thing not to report your friend's infidelity. It's another to actively abet it.
3
Lucky thing Peter didn't press either Jane or LW about the San Francisco pics.
So Jane and Martin chose career over true love. Something is wrong with both of them. I'm a retired Nebraska schoolteacher who balanced career with the needs of my Cape Verdean husband. In our travels, neither of us had to give up our careers - but both of us would have done it for love. If Jane and Martin are so professional, and if they love each other, why can't they do the same?
Frankly, I' as much disgusted with the LW for his co-dependent friendship with Jane as I am with the two married cheaters.
And don't think the spouses don't know. The spouses always know.
So Jane and Martin chose career over true love. Something is wrong with both of them. I'm a retired Nebraska schoolteacher who balanced career with the needs of my Cape Verdean husband. In our travels, neither of us had to give up our careers - but both of us would have done it for love. If Jane and Martin are so professional, and if they love each other, why can't they do the same?
Frankly, I' as much disgusted with the LW for his co-dependent friendship with Jane as I am with the two married cheaters.
And don't think the spouses don't know. The spouses always know.
Those who state unequivocally that they could never stay friends with a cheater would do well to look into the statistics on marital infidelity. Most of these commenters are almost assuredly friends with more than one cheater right now.
2
My comment is: If your comment is already represented by ten or twenty other existing comments, there's no need for you to post it. Just recommend the one(s) that reflect your point of view. 465 comments (thus far) all representing a total of about three or four points of view. Wow.
Do you think Jane won't throw you under the bus and blame you for all the lies and deceit when discovered? And speak of the affair you two were having, true or not?
You are a co-conspirator, and might worry about Peters firearms proficiency.
You are a co-conspirator, and might worry about Peters firearms proficiency.
1
Oh please. He is her soul mate? What magical thinking. They spend a couple weekends per year in a hotel. All sweetness and light. Isn't this a fabulous dinner and a great wine? Didn't you think that Charles Rose interview was fascinating? No petrified pizza in the fridge, dirty dishes in the sink, no "what do you mean, you didn't remember to do (insert list of daily grind chores)?"
11
It's really none of his business whether Jane is having an affair but it's also wrong to lie for her. He can continue his friendship with both parties but when Jane says 'how about those photos of the GG bridge?" all he has to do is shrug and say 'what photos?' I see no problem with this. Then it's up to Jane to make a quick recovery, or not. It's not his place to tell Peter about the affair nor is it his place to help cover it up. Sounds like this guy needs to get a life.
3
It is curious to me that an "intellectual" friendship wouldn't at least in part be predicated on similar moral values. An affair ending a marriage isn't uncommon, and as a friend I think I could be understanding and supportive. Carrying an affair that destroyed a previous marriage into a *new* marriage is an intentional action with potentially traumatic consequences. That decision shows a lack of self-awareness and, at the same time, self-centeredness. I would begin to seriously question the foundation of my friendship with that person.
2
Is adultery ever OK? Here is a real-life question about adultery for the many insightful commenters on this string:
I have good friend named Jane (really!) who onfided to me over drinks that it's been some years since she's had any interest at all in having sex with her husband, Sam. She told me that she would grudgingly take part every few months, but that she loved him like a sibling and that her sex drive had gone missing long ago. I asked her if she had tried either hormonal approaches or sex/couples therapy, and she said that she really didn't have much interest in all of that. Sam was still interested in sex, but she managed to fend him off most of the time. Now he mostly watches Internet porn in the study from time to time. Both Jane and Sam are in their mid-40s, with two lovely kids, two dogs, common interests, and warm friendships in our community. Sam's job requires him to travel at least 60% of the time. Both Jane and Sam are very attractive, fit (they run marathons together), and healthy.
When I discussed all of this with my husband, he and I agreed that in this case it might not be a bad idea for Sam to find a friend with benefits on the road. Each of us felt that if one of us could not or would not be sexual with the other anymore, then it would be OK for the other to discreetly stray.
What do you think?
I have good friend named Jane (really!) who onfided to me over drinks that it's been some years since she's had any interest at all in having sex with her husband, Sam. She told me that she would grudgingly take part every few months, but that she loved him like a sibling and that her sex drive had gone missing long ago. I asked her if she had tried either hormonal approaches or sex/couples therapy, and she said that she really didn't have much interest in all of that. Sam was still interested in sex, but she managed to fend him off most of the time. Now he mostly watches Internet porn in the study from time to time. Both Jane and Sam are in their mid-40s, with two lovely kids, two dogs, common interests, and warm friendships in our community. Sam's job requires him to travel at least 60% of the time. Both Jane and Sam are very attractive, fit (they run marathons together), and healthy.
When I discussed all of this with my husband, he and I agreed that in this case it might not be a bad idea for Sam to find a friend with benefits on the road. Each of us felt that if one of us could not or would not be sexual with the other anymore, then it would be OK for the other to discreetly stray.
What do you think?
First line of attack would be to address this honestly. It is not uncommon for middle age marraiges to hit a rut. It takes work to make a marraige last. And it can be incredibly rewarding. But honesty about feelings--good and bad-are in order. Ultimately, if both of them agreed that side action is okay, then go for it. But secretly changing the rules of the relationship is devasting to the partner in the dark. It is unfair and terribly traumatic. Cheating is a cowardly act, first and foremost.
3
Primum non nocere. First, do no harm. Loose lips sink ships. Then talk to your friend and tell her that she endangers her immortal soul by being an adulterer. We no longer stone them but they still must face God's judgment. Second, do not lie. To "did you get my pictures?" of whatever, say "No".
Look for and spend more time with some new friends.
2
Tell the husband! The author has lied to Peter and helped Jane deceive Peter. This means that, whatever his obligations to Peter a year ago, the author NOW owes it to Peter to come clean about his (the author's) own deception. Asking Jane not to put him on the spot anymore does not address the fact that he owes Peter a confession and an apology. Of course, if the author confesses his own transgressions to Peter, that means that Peter, if he chooses to sniff around, will inevitably find out the truth about Jane. The affair is something Peter should have known all along (Jane should have been honest with Peter so that Peter could decide if he wished to have this sort of marriage, a marriage in which he is basically a convenient place-holder for an unavailable "soul-mate").
In other words: it was Jane's job to come clean to her husband the past several years, a job at which she failed miserably. Now that she has manipulated the author into deception, it's also the author's job to come clean.
In other words: it was Jane's job to come clean to her husband the past several years, a job at which she failed miserably. Now that she has manipulated the author into deception, it's also the author's job to come clean.
1
I suspect the Jane-Martin affair is not as benign as the writer makes it seem. Jane and Martin are both treating people they supposedly love very despicably. There's more to this affair than lifelong true love prevented by unfortunate circumstances from being realized any other way. Wait till the whole thing blows up. Jane didn't learn anything when her previous marriage crashed and burned?
2
Jane is not your friend. Friends don't involve others in lies. Peter has done nothing to comprise your friendship. If you don't want to find yourself in an "ethical" mess just quietly disappear since no good will come out of this situation. Some day you may be able to be friends with Peter when this mess sorts itself out. Right now everyone is going to loose if you stay involved.
1
To all those who say that the answer is simply to dump the friend or friends:
What if, like mine, every single one of your friends sometimes exhibits behavior you disapprove of? What if, like me, you often disapprove of your own behavior? After I dump all of my flawed friends, should I then end my friendship with my flawed self? Or at least throw a towel over the bathroom mirror?
What if, like mine, every single one of your friends sometimes exhibits behavior you disapprove of? What if, like me, you often disapprove of your own behavior? After I dump all of my flawed friends, should I then end my friendship with my flawed self? Or at least throw a towel over the bathroom mirror?
1
It isn't about dumping a flawed friend, it is about not being complicit in the betrayal and psychological devastation of another person--especially a person you know and have a friendly relationship.
2
Dude ! Mind your own business . No good deed goes.....
2
These columns can certainly provoke interesting discussions at home.
My reaction to this case was that the friend should mind his own business completely, but caution the wife against ever drawing him into her marital situation again as she did when she asked him about the photos. My feeling is that nobody is ever really inside of someone else's marriage -- privy to the conscious and unconscious needs expressed there, the arrangements the couple might have made between themselves, spoken or unspoken, and other uniquely private aspects of the relationship (such as whether the couple are still having sex). I also believe that all people are flawed, including me, and that I should think long and hard before I counsel others about how to live. As I told my husband of 25 years, it's hard for me to imagine a situation in which I would tell a friend that his or her spouse was cheating.
To my shock, my husband said that he would definitely inform any close friend if he learned that a spouse were cheating. To him, it was a simple golden rule analysis: he himself would wish to be told, so that's the same way he should treat a friend.
One upside to our lively debate is that I now have a deeper appreciation of my husband's regard for the sanctity of his marriage vows!
My reaction to this case was that the friend should mind his own business completely, but caution the wife against ever drawing him into her marital situation again as she did when she asked him about the photos. My feeling is that nobody is ever really inside of someone else's marriage -- privy to the conscious and unconscious needs expressed there, the arrangements the couple might have made between themselves, spoken or unspoken, and other uniquely private aspects of the relationship (such as whether the couple are still having sex). I also believe that all people are flawed, including me, and that I should think long and hard before I counsel others about how to live. As I told my husband of 25 years, it's hard for me to imagine a situation in which I would tell a friend that his or her spouse was cheating.
To my shock, my husband said that he would definitely inform any close friend if he learned that a spouse were cheating. To him, it was a simple golden rule analysis: he himself would wish to be told, so that's the same way he should treat a friend.
One upside to our lively debate is that I now have a deeper appreciation of my husband's regard for the sanctity of his marriage vows!
4
Watch the movie "Same Time Next Year" - it gives a similar scenario to what you are talking about, with some great insights on human relationships. It might also help you with your decision.
1
The Ethicist's answer is overbalanced towards disapproval of the affair. If the letter-writer has an honest conviction that "the affair may be good for everyone," then acting on that conviction is not in itself ethically out-of-bounds. Not all lies are sins, and whoever first said "no relationship could survive total honesty" had a point. The letter-writer's judgment that disclosure would be the greater evil may prove wise or unwise, but it is not in itself unethical.
However as other commenters have noted, there is a difference between keeping an explosive secret and being made an accessory to the lies that "Jane" has made her own peace with telling. The writer needs a deal with "Jane": no more putting him on the spot with things like the fictional photos from San Francisco. Just as he he keeps her secret, she must keep his knowledge of it a secret - permanently and carefully. It is perhaps an example of the "tangled web" that deceit proverbially weaves - but "Jane" owes her friend that.
Another possibility not considered in the Ethicist's answer: "Peter" may know more than anyone else thinks, and have his own reasons for understanding, forgiving, or even agreeing that a certain zone of privacy and discretion is positive. The Ethicist is too certain that this marriage has something "seriously wrong with it," and "Peter" may have secrets of his own, better-kept than "Jane's." Scenarios like that are more common than people not in the midst of one probably think.
However as other commenters have noted, there is a difference between keeping an explosive secret and being made an accessory to the lies that "Jane" has made her own peace with telling. The writer needs a deal with "Jane": no more putting him on the spot with things like the fictional photos from San Francisco. Just as he he keeps her secret, she must keep his knowledge of it a secret - permanently and carefully. It is perhaps an example of the "tangled web" that deceit proverbially weaves - but "Jane" owes her friend that.
Another possibility not considered in the Ethicist's answer: "Peter" may know more than anyone else thinks, and have his own reasons for understanding, forgiving, or even agreeing that a certain zone of privacy and discretion is positive. The Ethicist is too certain that this marriage has something "seriously wrong with it," and "Peter" may have secrets of his own, better-kept than "Jane's." Scenarios like that are more common than people not in the midst of one probably think.
1
Why don't you pick a psychotherapist or marriage counselor to write this column? Hasn't it occured to you we deal with these situations all the time? I don't want to read these ivory tower blatherings. It's obvious what the writer should do: Confront Jane about the fact she is making him lie for her and say "I won't do it anymore--find a way to leave me out of it."
3
No relationship is worth it, if it is based on deception and lies. Draw a line on the sand and your moral health intact.
You have 3 options. Tell and you lose both friends. Don't tell and distance yourself, losing both friends. Don't tell and stay close - you lose yourself. That isn't really a choice. Distancing yourself is really the most courageous option, and the one that does the least harm.
3
In this day and age there's no telling what a 3rd partner could be carrying into a marriage and it may be a lot more then emotional pain. Martin could catch an STD before this is all said and done. I recommend that you include that concern for Martin's sake as you sort through what you should or should not do.
Don't tell Peter. You assume that he doesn't already know, but you can't be sure. It's possible that he knows, or suspects, and chooses to remain with Jane while maintaining a pretense of ignorance. Telling him could force a confrontation that he is doing his best to avoid. And do consider disengaging from both of these people.
1
A lot of diatribe against "Jane" here, dump her as a friend, "she's a snake," etc. As though this is an uncommon, outrageous act. It is not. The sheer numbers of men foolish enough to troll the robots on Ashley Madison, and the statistics on the frequency of extramarital affairs (and interestingly the ability of many marriages to survive them) suggest a different picture. I think we could all use for a little more honesty, including honesty about the real nature of romantic relationships, and honesty about our own fears of being abandoned. A lot of people seem to think if everybody would just join in and collectively police each other enough, maybe THEY would be inoculated against being cheated on. Not too far a leap from outright stoning people.
I do not think it is your responsibility to tell Peter but I do think you are obligated to have a serious discussion with Jane. She either needs to tell Peter of her infidelity or you need to break off your friendship with her. Of course if she takes the latter path you can then evaluate whether your friendship with Peter is just an artifact of your friendship with Jane. If so, you are essentially done with both of them and the case is closed, if not, then you are free from obligation to Jane and can (and probably should) tell Peter. Jane has put you in a terrible bind here and it is your relationship with her that needs evaluating.
In any event, good luck!
In any event, good luck!
The only dilemma I can see is if NW is actually related to Jane. That is the only case in which I see his loyalty to her warranting even a moment of hesitation. If NW and Jane are not siblings, his intimate knowledge of her exploits is inappropriate. I agree with many of the comments - it is none of his business. Nevertheless, she exposed herself and he willing received the information so the damage is done. NW and Jane's friendship alone is destructive her marriage, as well as any committed relationship that NW might have.
If they are indeed siblings, then I can understand how NW could be a holder of Jane's longtime secret. That does present a dilemma. What to do? Be honest to everyone involved. The truth shall set you free. Love Jane enough to tell her you can no longer carry this burden and you regret allowing it to go on for so long. Love Peter enough to show him the light if Jane is too selfish to come clean.
If they are indeed siblings, then I can understand how NW could be a holder of Jane's longtime secret. That does present a dilemma. What to do? Be honest to everyone involved. The truth shall set you free. Love Jane enough to tell her you can no longer carry this burden and you regret allowing it to go on for so long. Love Peter enough to show him the light if Jane is too selfish to come clean.
1
I'm opposed to adultery (w/h occurs by definition in a non-open relationship) on secular moral grounds. It not only entails pervasive lying to those we supposedly love, but also hurting them, betraying them, breaching their trust, putting a longterm relationship at risk & in some cases risking the well-being of one's children.
There's simply never an excuse for cheating. It's selfish. It puts one's own bodily and ego gratification ahead of the feelings of one's loved ones.
And for what? Sex & romance aren't like eating, drinking, sleeping or breathing. It's not as if anyone *must* have sex or die. Or have sex with a certain person. Or embark on an affair. Even if one feels that the Other Man/Woman is one's true soulmate, and feels the so-called "overwhelming passion," then one can have the decency to end one's marriage or longterm relationship *before* starting the second relationship.
(cont'd)
There's simply never an excuse for cheating. It's selfish. It puts one's own bodily and ego gratification ahead of the feelings of one's loved ones.
And for what? Sex & romance aren't like eating, drinking, sleeping or breathing. It's not as if anyone *must* have sex or die. Or have sex with a certain person. Or embark on an affair. Even if one feels that the Other Man/Woman is one's true soulmate, and feels the so-called "overwhelming passion," then one can have the decency to end one's marriage or longterm relationship *before* starting the second relationship.
(cont'd)
4
Mr. Name Withheld has already 'bro-bonded' with Peter. I say, go for it, have a gay affair with Peter! Name Withheld and Peter might strike up a nice long-term relationship, and Jane will receive her comeuppance. Problem solved (unless Martin wants in on this relationship too)!
Tell HER to tell him.....that's what you should do.
1
Jane is asking the letter writer to be complicit in a lie, in the immoral and unethical act of her adultery. In that case the letter writer would not be betraying his relationship with Jane by telling Jane's husband about Jane's adultery, because there's nothing to betray. Unless, perhaps, one believes in honor among thieves.
Attributing this dilemma to "moral narcissism" strikes me as the easy way out.
In this case I think the letter writer can choose to tell the husband about Jane's adultery with a clear conscience, or he can choose not to tell him, again with a clear conscience. But if he chooses not to tell I think he should end his relationship with Jane and her husband. I would question the ethics of a person who would stay involved under those circumstances.
Attributing this dilemma to "moral narcissism" strikes me as the easy way out.
In this case I think the letter writer can choose to tell the husband about Jane's adultery with a clear conscience, or he can choose not to tell him, again with a clear conscience. But if he chooses not to tell I think he should end his relationship with Jane and her husband. I would question the ethics of a person who would stay involved under those circumstances.
If the letter writer didn't have a relationship with Peter, then not telling is an option (though calling out your friend for using you in order to have your cake and it eat too, is very much in order). However he does. Holding on to such a secret further deepens a very traumatic situation for Peter--that people he trusts are keeping secrets and keeping him from knowledge of his own life and reality. It is very disorienting and psychologically traumatic. The letter writer is complicit in deepening the trauma of Peter who will likely find out. The longer it goes on, the worse the denoument.
The letter writer needs to first admit to himself his own motivations in the friendship. From there, the decision should be an easy one. For my part, I'd tell Peter the truth
If you really can't bear to keep this secret any longer, there's a very simple way to tell Peter without leaving a trail that will lead back to you. Create a new email address, one that has absolutely no reference to who you are in real life, and send Peter an email letting him know the absolute minimum about the affair---Martin's real name, maybe nothing else. (I wouldn't share his phone number or mailing address, you never know what Peter might do in the heat of the moment.) Make it clear in the body of the email that you're not interested in starting a dialog, and that this is strictly an information-only notification.
Assuming these people also read the NYT, I think the author did just tell "Peter" since it appears that Kwame Anthony Appiah is not a pseudonym. Right now, every one of Mr. Appiah's friends are wondering if they are "Jane and Peter."
It won't be that hard to figure out.
It won't be that hard to figure out.
It's odd to me that the writer hasn't considered saying to Jane, "Jane, what the [preferred forcefully dramatic word (PFDW)] are you doing? And who the [PFDW] do you think you are? Force me to lie again, and this [PFDW] of a relationship is through. So long, you lying [PFDW]."
Having read several comments, I agree that Jane is a true piece of work and both Name Withheld and Jane's husband would be well rid of her. Yes, she's enjoying the multiple triangulations. She apparently sees herself as some kind of
Also, Name Withheld makes no mention of children. It sounds as if all the parties involved are in late middle-age or older, so perhaps any children are grown. But even if they're grown, if they do exist it's important to consider their feelings as well. (And with Jane as a *mother,* they are perhaps in the worst position of all.)
Also, Name Withheld makes no mention of children. It sounds as if all the parties involved are in late middle-age or older, so perhaps any children are grown. But even if they're grown, if they do exist it's important to consider their feelings as well. (And with Jane as a *mother,* they are perhaps in the worst position of all.)
I have faced this exact problem, and was traumatized by the dilemma for too long. I ultimately went to my better friend and asked him to tell their spouse. After they chose not to, I stepped up. This led to divorce. Now I am much better friends with the person cheated on, who has remarried and lives a far better life. The cheater is perhaps no better off, but probably no worse off either. In hindsight it was clearly the right thing to do. I wouldn't blink next time if faced with the same decision.
2
I would speak directly to Jane. She needs to not make you complicit in her lies. She can go about her business but not entangle you in it. Your ignorance is their bliss. That's my take on it anyway.
2
This is a tough one. In general I would say let sleeping dogs lie- a very sporadic affair could help blow off steam and even invigorate a marriage as long as it's kept discreet and far away from one's family, social, and professional sphere. Especially if there were kids involved I would definitely not tell him. But rereading this column it struck me that with no kids and a wife who's on her second marriage and still hasn't finished sowing her wild oats... maybe it's best to urge her to come clean and live with the consequences. She can't live a lie forever. She doesn't seem like the type for monogamy and needs to lay her cards on the table for any person that is considering a life with her.
1
The anchor point in this situation should be personal integrity. Jane is violating the letter writer's integrity by bringing him into her deceit, something he obviously finds troublesome. Instead of asking an outer "ethicist" for guidance, he would be better off turning inward and asking his own inner guide what course would be true to his own integrity. I anticipate that such introspection would lead him to tell Jane that he's no longer willing to be part of her deception and then withdraw. As her friend, he might encourage her to do the same, which might lead her to be honest with her spouse about the choice she's made.
1
Leave it alone. I am the son of a Jane - and Peter was told in my case.
Jane and Peter in my case didn't divorce, 'for the kids.'
It made our lives growing up miserable - and I will never forgive the person who told Peter.
Martin has kids - you don't want to ruin their lives, yes? As a kid of this kind of triangle, I'd say leave it alone. Everyone will be happier.
Jane and Peter in my case didn't divorce, 'for the kids.'
It made our lives growing up miserable - and I will never forgive the person who told Peter.
Martin has kids - you don't want to ruin their lives, yes? As a kid of this kind of triangle, I'd say leave it alone. Everyone will be happier.
20
Your parents did you wrong by staying together AND not working hard on fixing the broken trust and whatever else was wrong in the marraige. Chances are when one partner is checked out and tuned in to someone else, they aren't putting much in to the family and the partnership. I a sorry your lives were miserable, but it wasn't because a betrayal was revealed. It was because one or more people in the relationship made terribly poor decisions.
1
So you're blaming someone else, not your own parents?
Something is wrong with that picture.
Something is wrong with that picture.
1
I agree with you Locke. You're right, "leave it alone" is good advice.
The most troubling part of the story for me, is Jane's reference to her photos of her "San Francisco business trip". Maybe her husband wonders why she'd share photos with her friend and not him. I would. Jane should not be asking for help to support the stories she's telling.
The most troubling part of the story for me, is Jane's reference to her photos of her "San Francisco business trip". Maybe her husband wonders why she'd share photos with her friend and not him. I would. Jane should not be asking for help to support the stories she's telling.
1). When and how much did Name Withheld (NW) know about Martin?
2). Did Martin play a role in the break-up of Jane's first marriage?
3). Was NW aware of the Martin issue during Jane's first marriage, her divorce and/or her engagement with Peter?
If NW was aware of Jane's Martin issue before she married Peter, how the heck is he going to broach that with Peter? Sorry, I didn't like you enough back then to tell you that you were marrying dishonest woman? Think that's going to play well with your newly discovered friendship?
No amount of handwringing is going to help you, now, I'm afraid. Play in the dirt, eventually your fingers get stained. You can put on some new clothes, if you like. But it'll take a bit of clean play for the stains and callouses to disappear.
2). Did Martin play a role in the break-up of Jane's first marriage?
3). Was NW aware of the Martin issue during Jane's first marriage, her divorce and/or her engagement with Peter?
If NW was aware of Jane's Martin issue before she married Peter, how the heck is he going to broach that with Peter? Sorry, I didn't like you enough back then to tell you that you were marrying dishonest woman? Think that's going to play well with your newly discovered friendship?
No amount of handwringing is going to help you, now, I'm afraid. Play in the dirt, eventually your fingers get stained. You can put on some new clothes, if you like. But it'll take a bit of clean play for the stains and callouses to disappear.
Does Peter want to know? My sister was crazy about a guy who was engaged to marry someone else. I found out and told my sister about the 'other' woman. This was 30 years ago. Somehow my sister held this against me then and still does...even though the guy dumped her and went back to his fiance when he moved back to his home town. People sometimes just don't want to hear the truth.
I don't know. One of the most romantic movies I've ever seen is "Same Time, Next Year" with Alan Alda and Ellen Burstyn - and the storyline matches very closely to what Jane and Martin are doing right now.
I would say, govern yourself and stay out of the relationships of others. You could also let Jane know you won't be covering for her anymore, however.
Who knows? This very well could be what keeps Jane and Peter's marriage going.
I would say, govern yourself and stay out of the relationships of others. You could also let Jane know you won't be covering for her anymore, however.
Who knows? This very well could be what keeps Jane and Peter's marriage going.
being a friend means being a friend and accepting those who have faults- but it it in no way gives you the moral authority to bring havoc to other peoples lives not matter how well intentioned or "morally right" you may be
its perfectly fine to advise and demand to not be drawn into the friends deception - but anything beyond that - things should be left in the realm of "stay in your lane". there are things to stand up for and things to sit and shut up about - saying something makes it more about what you want rather than simply being a friend ; and the transgressing "friend" should not put you in a position to engage in their deception AND keep their confidence - thats also being a friend
in fact you should tell them you dont want to be their confessional about this subject ; tell them to find a therapist or a priest to confess about this issue to.
mighty judgmental to insist that you should incite discord in someone relationship
its perfectly fine to advise and demand to not be drawn into the friends deception - but anything beyond that - things should be left in the realm of "stay in your lane". there are things to stand up for and things to sit and shut up about - saying something makes it more about what you want rather than simply being a friend ; and the transgressing "friend" should not put you in a position to engage in their deception AND keep their confidence - thats also being a friend
in fact you should tell them you dont want to be their confessional about this subject ; tell them to find a therapist or a priest to confess about this issue to.
mighty judgmental to insist that you should incite discord in someone relationship
Here is a better way to reason the letter writer’s issue: Jane is a great friend and Peter is someone with whom he is friendly simply because of Peter’s marriage to Jane. If he had to choose, he would take Jane. What the writer owes Peter is basic civility enhanced by reflected loyalty to Jane; he has no obligation to volunteer any information that hurts Jane’s interests or his own relationship with Jane. Moreover, he owes Jane, one of his oldest and most loyal friends, to keep her confidences. But that doesn’t mean that he owes it to Jane to be complicit and there is a difference between staying silent and being a beard. He should take Jane aside and explain that while he will never betray her, he won’t alibi her either – no more make believe photos, etc.
I am mystified why Appiah thinks the writer’s sex factors in this case. The implied “bro-ist” idea that a man who is friends with couple has a greater responsibility to the male then to the female just because he is a male is retrograde and repugnant. As Appaih admits, you never actually know the rules of someone else’s marriage; so why does he then model bad behavior by drawing unsupported censorious conclusions and making damning characterizations of Jane’s behavior from a distance? The sounder response to such ignorance of the intimate is discretion and respect for privacy and autonomy. You don’t just owe it to Jane to keep out of it – you owe it to Peter as well.
I am mystified why Appiah thinks the writer’s sex factors in this case. The implied “bro-ist” idea that a man who is friends with couple has a greater responsibility to the male then to the female just because he is a male is retrograde and repugnant. As Appaih admits, you never actually know the rules of someone else’s marriage; so why does he then model bad behavior by drawing unsupported censorious conclusions and making damning characterizations of Jane’s behavior from a distance? The sounder response to such ignorance of the intimate is discretion and respect for privacy and autonomy. You don’t just owe it to Jane to keep out of it – you owe it to Peter as well.
1
It's funny that each commenter says "The answer is simple and obvious"--and then gives an answer that contradicts half of the other commenters.
1
Mind your own business and get better friends.
2
Oh just mind your own business why don't you?
1
Just say "No" to getting the texts. It's bad enough that she expects you to keep this secret from your friend, but she's taunting you when she asks this question in front of him. Don't say anything else--just no. Just because she likes to lie doesn't mean you have to.
2
"Jane thinks Martin is her true life’s ‘'soul mate'...’’ What a bunch of teenage clap-trap.
Obviously there are details to which we are not privy, but Jane sounds like a selfish idiot. I am not sure I would tell Peter about the affair, but I certainly would distance myself from Jane.
Obviously there are details to which we are not privy, but Jane sounds like a selfish idiot. I am not sure I would tell Peter about the affair, but I certainly would distance myself from Jane.
3
Clever illustration Tomi!
I think only thing that you(NW) need to do is make it clear to 'Jane' to not make you a participant in her lie by asking you to confirm or deny something. Everything else is none of your business or responsibility! Jane is adult and so is Peter. Peter married Jane and that's what he gets!
I think only thing that you(NW) need to do is make it clear to 'Jane' to not make you a participant in her lie by asking you to confirm or deny something. Everything else is none of your business or responsibility! Jane is adult and so is Peter. Peter married Jane and that's what he gets!
1
Next time Jane tries to involve the writer in a lie I suggest he turn to the husband and casually mention he doesn't have his cell number and he'd like to have it in case he wants to contact him or send a text about an important issue.
I assume Jane will turn blue with rage, and unless the husband is totally clueless he should, from her body language, be able to sense something is amiss.
I assume Jane will turn blue with rage, and unless the husband is totally clueless he should, from her body language, be able to sense something is amiss.
Loved the little illustration; she is definitively a manipulator. What we don't know here, though, is if Peter is having an affair too. I would not say anything, but try to distance myself from both. Too complicated!
To all who say MYOB: Jane *made* it the LW's business when she put him on the spot to lie for her, and the LW became complicit in the deception. At the very least, the LW should be responsible for his own words and retract his lie to Peter, and let Peter come to his own conclusions.
2
I was very surprised to read Prof. Appiah's advice on this matter. The question I would pose to the man in this situation is why he would want to continue to be good friends with Jane, knowing that Jane is a liar of this magnitude. We all lie every day (intentionally or not) and it is hard to never lie, but to lie about something like this is deliberate and Jane does not have a right to lie to Peter in this way, if Peter would rather not be in this situation.
I find it deeply disturbing that Prof. Appiah is leaning on the side of inaction based on the argument that ending the friendship fixes nothing. The question's author shouldn't be the one having to fix anything -- that is Jane's responsibility since she is the creator of this problem.
If I were in the author's position, this is what I would do: tell Jane that I am not comfortable lying and that if she asks me a question, I will answer it in a truthful manner, even if it could lead to suspicion's part. I would also tell her that I'm not comfortable with her lying, and that I find it very hard to be a loyal friend to someone who lies in this way. Jane can then take this into account and decide if she tells Peter, or if she ends her friendship with me. If she decided to keep the lie going, then that would affect the strength of the bond and loyalty I have with her.
I find it deeply disturbing that Prof. Appiah is leaning on the side of inaction based on the argument that ending the friendship fixes nothing. The question's author shouldn't be the one having to fix anything -- that is Jane's responsibility since she is the creator of this problem.
If I were in the author's position, this is what I would do: tell Jane that I am not comfortable lying and that if she asks me a question, I will answer it in a truthful manner, even if it could lead to suspicion's part. I would also tell her that I'm not comfortable with her lying, and that I find it very hard to be a loyal friend to someone who lies in this way. Jane can then take this into account and decide if she tells Peter, or if she ends her friendship with me. If she decided to keep the lie going, then that would affect the strength of the bond and loyalty I have with her.
The story is sad enough but the comment are what really tell me the world is pretty much in the hole from a moral standpoint.
So many are either indifferent, cowardly or say "mind your own business" thus, lacking any moral stand whatsoever.
I guess if one sees a guy stuffing a pressure cooker in a duffle bag they can have the same attitude as long as its not them being injured. Of if one sees your children getting into a strangers car so what, "its not my problem".
I'll bet if this was about some guy that knows another mutual friend is stealing small amounts from the account of his friend, it would be a "no brainier"... tell the friend that he is being robbed! And yet, this women (not a wife per the vow if she is cheating) is showing this writer how wretched she really is. She is not only a liar but has little love for the husband or anyone else in her family.
But from all this the really sad part is how many who commented have no real bravery to alert an innocent victim of infidelity.
Tell the wife that she is no wife but a hurtful person that is/has destroyed what glimpse of humanity she might have had in the past by continuing this action and then tell the husband what you know about the matter.
So many are either indifferent, cowardly or say "mind your own business" thus, lacking any moral stand whatsoever.
I guess if one sees a guy stuffing a pressure cooker in a duffle bag they can have the same attitude as long as its not them being injured. Of if one sees your children getting into a strangers car so what, "its not my problem".
I'll bet if this was about some guy that knows another mutual friend is stealing small amounts from the account of his friend, it would be a "no brainier"... tell the friend that he is being robbed! And yet, this women (not a wife per the vow if she is cheating) is showing this writer how wretched she really is. She is not only a liar but has little love for the husband or anyone else in her family.
But from all this the really sad part is how many who commented have no real bravery to alert an innocent victim of infidelity.
Tell the wife that she is no wife but a hurtful person that is/has destroyed what glimpse of humanity she might have had in the past by continuing this action and then tell the husband what you know about the matter.
2
Perfect illustration, by the way. Much better than the advice. Thank you, Tomi Um!
I think that it's interesting that Jane did not consider marriage to Martin after her first divorce, and yet started a relationship and married Peter. I wonder if this is not a variation of the Same Time Next Year scenario. The married couple actually love and care for each other, but look forward to this interlude with another. Both parties probably are romanticizing their feelings for the other, although I wonder whether they would have a successful relationship if they were free to marry each other. They obviously have a great attraction for each other and may be soul mates as she describes, but marriages require a lot of work, and responsibility. I think both parties may sense that their passion for the other would fade quickly if they were required to stay together for years to come. In a sense, all affairs are flights of fantasy which mimic those early days of love when their is nothing more important than the other, and our normal responsibilities fade away.
If "Peter" reads this column, the secret is out.
1
Better yet. Tell Peter about this really fascinating column in the Times.
3
Buy Jane a copy of Therese Raquin for Christmas.
1
Dear NW. None of the most recommended comments will work for you. Here's why: friendships form around mutually compatible levels of integrity. If you meet a saintly cancer researcher that wakes up at 5am on sundays to volunteer for a shelter you probably won't form a friendship - that's too much integrity. If you meet a drug dealer selling heroin to kids you won't form a friendship - too little integrity. Jane matches your level of integrity and not just your level of intellectual quirkiness and that's the root of your friendship: you two have both been keeping this affair from Peter for years. And when she discusses the affair you listen and probably match her stories with ways that you are impure and have been a scoundrel in other parts of your life - maybe not affairs. This is how friendship works. So for you to take the high-ground now is absurd - that's just readers projecting their own higher level of integrity into the story. You may abandon this friendship but I guarantee you the next new friendship you form will match your current level of integrity and intellectual quirkiness. All you can really do here is see deeply who you are. If you can't live with what you see then you will change. If you can there is no issue. But you can't try on high-integrity as your new personae and expect it to be lasting or that it will somehow redeem you. Becoming some self-annointed saint who hasn't really changed will just irritate your friends
The husband likely already knows. May well be having one himself but his lips are less loose with you than hers. Stay away from them both.
Whatever happened to "mind your own business"?
This guy just wants his own sense of heightened morality, and agonized superiority, validated.
"I'm better than both of them, aren't I? Their behavior doesn't tarnish me, no matter what I do, 'cause at least I wrote a letter to the NYT. Right?! "
Must be a millennial.
This guy just wants his own sense of heightened morality, and agonized superiority, validated.
"I'm better than both of them, aren't I? Their behavior doesn't tarnish me, no matter what I do, 'cause at least I wrote a letter to the NYT. Right?! "
Must be a millennial.
It's one thing for the friend to know that an affair is happening, and not tell the husband. It's quite another when the wife forces the friend to aid in the deception. The friend needs to tell the wife how uncomfortable this all makes him, and that he wishes that he had never known about it, doesn't want to hear about it any more, and that he certainly doesn't want to be put in the position of "backing her up" in her deception. Yes, the wife will probably draw away from the friend, and then he may also see less of the husband. But that's probably all for the best, certainly better than being forced to choose between backing up her deception, or leaving her open to being found out.
This answer is fine from a philosophical point of view, but now let me offer one as the husband and victim of my wife's affair: this man needs to know. It's as simple as that.
1
Jane pushed the envelope when she forcibly included her friend (the writer of the question) in open collusion. That was unnecessary and cruel, at least without prior arrangement, and puts paid forever to any attempt to say "I just wanted to stay out of it." Now he has lied for her to the husband and the deception is shared. THAT the husband would never forgive. (Would you?) If keeping Jane in his life is so important, she needs to be read the riot act about ever implicating him again. But meanwhile I'd wonder how great a friend she was, and quietly stop calling her back.
1
I have called the person aside and simply told them to never involve me in their infidelity. Make it clear that they are each your friend. You will not be complicit in lying to the other party compromising your integrity and possibly your future friendship with both.
In this manner you are not complicit with the lies and deceit of the guilty party going forward and you do not risk sticking your nose where it does not belong.
If she is a truly good friend she will understand quite well that to involve you in her illicit activities is simply not fair to you and makes you very uncomfortable.
It is rarely a good idea to become involved in telling someone of their spouse's transgressions. Most often as I have witnessed the whistle blower ends up losing both friends in the process.
Whereas, if it should come to pass that this comes to the other spouse's attention you have the possibility of saying, I had knowledge of this at one point, but presumed it had ceased if you must say anything at all.
However, if Peter goes to Jane and says you told him.... probably that relationship is finished and since you are closer to Jane your friendship with Peter will very likely not survive the break-up of the marriage and if the marriage survives the revelation how much is Jane going to want you around?
It is not your business so do not get involved. Make it clear above all to your good friend Jane to NEVER make you complicit in her infidelity.
HEAR, SPEAK & SEE NO EVIL!
In this manner you are not complicit with the lies and deceit of the guilty party going forward and you do not risk sticking your nose where it does not belong.
If she is a truly good friend she will understand quite well that to involve you in her illicit activities is simply not fair to you and makes you very uncomfortable.
It is rarely a good idea to become involved in telling someone of their spouse's transgressions. Most often as I have witnessed the whistle blower ends up losing both friends in the process.
Whereas, if it should come to pass that this comes to the other spouse's attention you have the possibility of saying, I had knowledge of this at one point, but presumed it had ceased if you must say anything at all.
However, if Peter goes to Jane and says you told him.... probably that relationship is finished and since you are closer to Jane your friendship with Peter will very likely not survive the break-up of the marriage and if the marriage survives the revelation how much is Jane going to want you around?
It is not your business so do not get involved. Make it clear above all to your good friend Jane to NEVER make you complicit in her infidelity.
HEAR, SPEAK & SEE NO EVIL!
37
I think this analysis overvalues keeping either friendship intact. The writer is unhappy about this situation or he wouldn't have asked for advice. The simple answer is to get this slimy woman out of his life. She's not trustworthy, a key trait in a friend. And he's no true friend to Peter since he's unwilling to tell him that his wife's cheating on him. Do Peter a favor and fade away so that he's not one day also facing the second blow that a friend (by then, an even closer friend) didn't tell him. The woman doesn't deserve your friendship, so start declining invitations from both and move on. He'll be happier.
As reprehensible as I think the affair is, I don't think it is the writer's place to reveal the affair to Peter. As one of the readers pointed out, this may likely result in the painful end of the marriage and that is not the reader's call to make. However, the writer can stop giving Jane his tacit approval of the affair and tell her he no longer wants to be part of the deceit. Regardless of whether Martin might be her true "soul mate", (easy to say when you don't live together and only see each other twice a year) her duplicity is wrong. Tell her that.
20
Don't tell him. It was wrong for her to make you complicit in the "photos of the bridge," but that can't be undone. Refuse to comply any more in covering up for her. As you said, this relationship/affiar is of long-standing (does the husband know of him as a factor in her prior divorce? It may be possible that he does know but chooses to turn a blind eye.).Your telling the husband will be at best embarrassing and at worst devastating.. There will only be hurt,. Is you clear conscience worth that?
11
In my experience the other souse always has a sense something is not quite right. They tend to turn a blind eye. It's really none of your business, so keep out of it.
14
So far so good. But what if "the other souse" sobers up?
-dlj.
1
The choice between two betrayals is difficult, and it seems presumptuous from afar to tell someone what to do in this situation. However one thing seems clear to me: taking an active role to aid the deception is a big mistake. Whatever you think about Jane's affair and the marriage, she should not involve you in the deception, and you should tell her so.
20
The article and comments bring up the question of the nature of friendship. Name withheld wrote, "The friendship is more with Jane than with Peter. Jane and I have known each other for years and work in the same profession, and I knew her before she married Peter, and I am closer to Jane". He then describes Jane's unethical behavior in which she has entangled him.
I know people who regularly behave badly and intend to go on behaving as they have. I speak to them with civility. I may have worked with them professionally, had lunch with them, laughed with them over a pun, etc. In short, I behaved friendly toward them, but I did not count them among my friends. I could go on, but I think the distinction is clear.
I wonder if your ethicist considered such a distinction when he wrote, "But telling Peter about what she’s been doing would be the betrayal of another relationship, yours with Jane. It’s a bond of longer standing and of greater closeness. So you’ve been faced with a choice of two betrayals. And, in the rock-paper-scissors of these relationships, the loyalty owed her trumps the loyalty owed him".
I know people who regularly behave badly and intend to go on behaving as they have. I speak to them with civility. I may have worked with them professionally, had lunch with them, laughed with them over a pun, etc. In short, I behaved friendly toward them, but I did not count them among my friends. I could go on, but I think the distinction is clear.
I wonder if your ethicist considered such a distinction when he wrote, "But telling Peter about what she’s been doing would be the betrayal of another relationship, yours with Jane. It’s a bond of longer standing and of greater closeness. So you’ve been faced with a choice of two betrayals. And, in the rock-paper-scissors of these relationships, the loyalty owed her trumps the loyalty owed him".
3
I'd be willing to bet that those who advocate some version of MYOB have not been cheated on (or have been, but don't know about it), or haven't seen first hand the destruction of families that inevitably ensues. This lying is toxic, and one should not need to consult an academic to come to a decision here. By asking the author to collude in the deception, "Jane" clearly demonstrates her cruelty, narcissism and her frightening concept of friendship. She gets her jollies from having others know about her lie, and from humiliating her husband.
Sexes reversed here, and comments would differ dramatically, no doubt.
"The Ethicist" has tanked since conversion to the new format. This kind of question should be posed of Psychiatrists, who are well-versed in such matters, and not members of this crew.
Sexes reversed here, and comments would differ dramatically, no doubt.
"The Ethicist" has tanked since conversion to the new format. This kind of question should be posed of Psychiatrists, who are well-versed in such matters, and not members of this crew.
25
I've been in that position, actually, and do not thank the "friend" who saw fit to "share" the news with me. The trouble was between my spouse and me, and I already had a fair idea what was going on. But no, I didn't consider it an act of friendship to tell me about it; it really WAS none of the "friend's" business. Telling me all about it was an act that had more of malice in it than of kindness to either of us, frankly. But that was long, long ago, and perhaps other cases are quite different. A lot depends on the characters and circumstances of all the people interacting in the sorry deal.
3
You bring up a good point: who's to say Martin won't someday decide to move back (maybe for a job offer or retirement), divorce, and want to commit to Jane? Will she then cast Peter aside?
Perhaps Peter should be made aware.
Perhaps Peter should be made aware.
Wow are you fast to judge. Whereas Appiah is saying you should be careful in making judgments in a situation like this. And also he's analyzing the situation as presented, not the real people in it, of whom we only have relatively first-hand experience of one, namely the writer.
I think it's crucial that she "confided in" the writer. That matters. If he betrays a confidence he's doing what she did.
I think it's crucial that she "confided in" the writer. That matters. If he betrays a confidence he's doing what she did.
1
Definitely believe the Writer should sit down with Jane and say "never again put me in a position where I must lie". But regarding the specific circumstance shared, he could have told the truth that he did not receive Jane's text of photos. Today's technology is such that this happens routinely.
19
Clever but deceit is still there.
Mind your own business. Do you have proof of this alleged affair (ie have you seen them together having sex?). If not, don't meddle. As for confirming details, you don't need to lie; say you don't remember receiving the alleged corroborative information. If this is a bad relationship it will implode on its own.
6
RE "you don't need to lie; say you don't remember "
But even that is a lie, and complicitous at that.
But even that is a lie, and complicitous at that.
"And probably the strangest thing is, deep inside, I think the affair may be good for everyone."
1. The writer is most likely correct in this liberating conclusion, overlooked by so many commenters on their high horses.
2. The poor wretch is conflicted by his lie about the photos. A better answer would have been, "Not yet; I'll check the spam folder," followed by an admonition to Jane, "Don't ever put me on the spot again."
3. "Doing doesn't hurt, telling does."
1. The writer is most likely correct in this liberating conclusion, overlooked by so many commenters on their high horses.
2. The poor wretch is conflicted by his lie about the photos. A better answer would have been, "Not yet; I'll check the spam folder," followed by an admonition to Jane, "Don't ever put me on the spot again."
3. "Doing doesn't hurt, telling does."
11
Best reply so far.
Well versed at lying and deception, aren't you? Glad not to have such a cynical view of honesty and human relationships.
"Doing doesn't hurt, telling does."
IMO, that's a very strange thing to say.
IMO, that's a very strange thing to say.
1
Cheating is a form of stealing, an act of narcissism that states "what I want trumps all else". The writer has known about it for quite awhile, and in at least one instance has become an accessory to the crime. The "moral narcissism" can go both ways, either report the crime and feel morally relieved, or keep it a secret so the friendship is not endangered. Or, outside of any self interest, tell the husband for his own sake, so he has the opportunity to chart his own destiny.
7
Here is my analysis, if I am the friend:
People are imperfect. Marriages are imperfect. I myself am imperfect. I am in no position to stick my hands into the guts of a marriage I am not part of because of a misguided belief that I have the right to police other people morally on a matter between two adults that has nothing to do with me.
People are imperfect, and therefore I and all of my friends are imperfect. Longtime friends should not be shed casually because it takes a very long time to grow a meaningful relationship. If I befriend only perfect people, I will be very lonely indeed. At times, relationships should change or perhaps deintensify. But total rejection of a longtime friendship should be a very last resort. Walking away from these friends is not indicated at this time, on these facts.
While I am not the morality police on matters that do not concern me directly, I do have the right (and obligation to myself) to set clear boundaries about my own conduct. I need to set such a boundary now with Jane, letting her know clearly that she must never again implicate me in dishonesty as she did regarding the travel photographs.
People are imperfect. Marriages are imperfect. I myself am imperfect. I am in no position to stick my hands into the guts of a marriage I am not part of because of a misguided belief that I have the right to police other people morally on a matter between two adults that has nothing to do with me.
People are imperfect, and therefore I and all of my friends are imperfect. Longtime friends should not be shed casually because it takes a very long time to grow a meaningful relationship. If I befriend only perfect people, I will be very lonely indeed. At times, relationships should change or perhaps deintensify. But total rejection of a longtime friendship should be a very last resort. Walking away from these friends is not indicated at this time, on these facts.
While I am not the morality police on matters that do not concern me directly, I do have the right (and obligation to myself) to set clear boundaries about my own conduct. I need to set such a boundary now with Jane, letting her know clearly that she must never again implicate me in dishonesty as she did regarding the travel photographs.
23
"I need to set such a boundary now with Jane, letting her know clearly that she must never again implicate me in dishonesty as she did regarding the travel photographs."
NW has BEEN implicated in dishonestly by knowing about Jane's affair through 2 marriages. The photo dishonesty wasn't the first time, rather the final straw.
NW has BEEN implicated in dishonestly by knowing about Jane's affair through 2 marriages. The photo dishonesty wasn't the first time, rather the final straw.
1
JJ -
Your analysis is the best so far.
- Julie
Your analysis is the best so far.
- Julie
Really? You're more concerned about the dishonesty of Jane's implicating the writer than in her disloyalty and dishonesty with her husband? The latter you dismiss as a mere imperfection, to which we are all guilty. Really? Cheating on your spouse is a mere blemish to you?
Why is having a husband and a lover immoral?
15
The deceit is immoral. Lying is immoral. Some couples are open about their affairs. If both agree, there is no problem.
What's wrong is the lying. If everybody thinks it's okay, no problem. But when you lie (by deception, omission, or any other device), you are interfering with at least one other person's grasp of reality. None of us have the right to do that.
Valid enough - as long as they both know about the other. But in this case the husband has no idea. Why is that? "There's the rub"
I am not sure that this is an ethical dilemma. It is clear who has committed an ethical violation. There is a practical dilemma in that it is not clear is what name withheld should do to produce the most good/least harm.
I found the following paragraph troubling: "But telling Peter about what she’s been doing would be the betrayal of another relationship, yours with Jane. It’s a bond of longer standing and of greater closeness. So you’ve been faced with a choice of two betrayals. And, in the rock-paper-scissors of these relationships, the loyalty owed her trumps the loyalty owed him."
Our ethicist seems to say that loyalty developed in the course of a long friendship is of greater import than the action of the friend.
The paragraph is doubly troubling because our ethicist is suggesting that name withheld owes deep overriding loyalty to a friend whose friendship has entangled him serious deception of another for years.
I found the following paragraph troubling: "But telling Peter about what she’s been doing would be the betrayal of another relationship, yours with Jane. It’s a bond of longer standing and of greater closeness. So you’ve been faced with a choice of two betrayals. And, in the rock-paper-scissors of these relationships, the loyalty owed her trumps the loyalty owed him."
Our ethicist seems to say that loyalty developed in the course of a long friendship is of greater import than the action of the friend.
The paragraph is doubly troubling because our ethicist is suggesting that name withheld owes deep overriding loyalty to a friend whose friendship has entangled him serious deception of another for years.
55
I suspect Jane is enjoying the intrigue and drama of her affair and attempted to add to it by bringing in NW. I also believe that she's aware of the more than platonic interest he has in our heroine, which he sublimates by being her "intellectual" buddy. Wake up buddy, you're being used.
22
Such advice may be reasonable until "Name Withheld" learns that Peter is having an affair with "Name Withheld's" wife while Peter's wife Jane is having an affair with Martin. Which is to say that it is all situational and circumstantial and really something that "Name Withheld" needs to work out for himself. And who knows? What he decides today may be negative and become a positive thing ten years from now when he has an affair with both Jane and Peter's new wife.
4
Yes, stay out of it. If Jane and Martin are truly in love, they will find a way to be together, regardless of distance and other commitments. The heart wants what the heart wants. Peter, Martin's wife & kids will all be WAY better off if the two lovebirds just admit that they belong together and actually do it. The fact that they have not tells me there is no true commitment there. Keep your mouth shut and MYOB.
5
Jane should most certainly NOT be asking her friend to help her lie and conceal the affair. That makes her a terrible friend. He should tell her immediately that, while he will not betray her, she is to leave him out of the lies she tells.
Also, she may be exposing her husband to STDs. Is she using condoms with Martin? Martin may be having other affairs, and passing STDs to Jane, who is then passing them to her husband.
Also, she may be exposing her husband to STDs. Is she using condoms with Martin? Martin may be having other affairs, and passing STDs to Jane, who is then passing them to her husband.
6
You never answered his question, Appiah. At least not the one he was really looking for.
If I were Jane's friend (and I'm a woman btw), I would ask her to please not include me as an accomplice in her affair. Knowing about it is one thing but I don't use me for your alibi.
If I were Jane's friend (and I'm a woman btw), I would ask her to please not include me as an accomplice in her affair. Knowing about it is one thing but I don't use me for your alibi.
8
While Jane's behavior with the texts is highly unpalatable, still it is interesting that so many comments here are so self-righteous regarding the rest of the situation. Human relationships are complicated, and the fact that you call a relationship "marriage" doesn't fundamentally change the human psychology or emotional needs. As the question writer perceptively suggests, all involved may be deriving benefits from this (seemingly) unorthodox arrangement. Both the Ethicist and many of the readers unquestioningly assume that if an extramarital relationship is present, the marriage should end. Indeed this would be the most straightforward solution, ethically, for some couples. But why must it always be so? It is not for others to judge.
9
@Sam
Your statement "Both the Ethicist and many of the readers unquestioningly assume that if an extramarital relationship is present, the marriage should end." is perplexing as I don't detect this assumption in the column.
Even if "name withheld" were to divulge the affair to "Peter" it doesn't necessarily forecast a divorce.
Your statement "Both the Ethicist and many of the readers unquestioningly assume that if an extramarital relationship is present, the marriage should end." is perplexing as I don't detect this assumption in the column.
Even if "name withheld" were to divulge the affair to "Peter" it doesn't necessarily forecast a divorce.
The lying and duping should end. People presume ending those things will likely end the marriage.
Even if the husband and wife being lied to were open to an unorthodox arrangement, they probably wouldn't get past how they've been lied to and humiliated.
Even if the husband and wife being lied to were open to an unorthodox arrangement, they probably wouldn't get past how they've been lied to and humiliated.
Stay out of it. Jane is your friend and confides in you because she trusts you. Her sex life is not your business, nor do you have a moral responsibility to tell anyone about it. It's her life. Let her figure it out. Just be her friend.
5
Jane sounds like a pretty lousy friend- even w/o the "text from San Francisco." Was her affair with Martin the reason her previous marriage collapsedt? It's also odd that she was so eager to enter into another marriage- in which she's deceived her husband from the start about her involvement with Martin. Is Peter someone she uses simply to make Martin (who seems to be her match in the creep dept) feel she's as unavailable as he is? And why does NW have so much time to hang around with Peter- and why has she encouraged this? Is NW supposed to keep Peter company while she's on "business trips"? And another possibility- is NW gay? In any case, he doesn't mention even a casual date being involved in activities with this couple. And certainly, a partner of his own would have his/her own take on this situation and be far better equipped than the "Ethicist" to help deal with it. Jane doesn't need a friend as much as drama- as well as an audience for it. Unless NW receives some genuine return for his service, he may want to suggest Jane find a professional claque.
Jane has made it his business by not only confiding in him about the affair but dragging him into the lie.
I wouldn't consider that the action of a friend, and I would tell her as much.
I wouldn't consider that the action of a friend, and I would tell her as much.
Keep your mouth shut.
3
What a beautiful response to an ugly mortal coil. A pensive reminder that moral narcissism in the context of predatory foreign aid, aggressive end-of-life treatment and debilitating student loans may indeed render the "cure" worse than the condition it seeks, so righteously, to solve.
3
Say WHAT?
1
One kind of loyalty trumping another kind of loyalty is absurd, sounding as if ethics and morality can be reduced to a mathematical equation of weights and scales. The friend has been placed in a quite uncomfortable position of being used by his so-called friend who has now betrayed the trust of two husbands, a lover and a friend to boot. And many of the responses here to remain silent is for me at least a kind of urban false witness--ignore it and it will go away. There's also the loyalty to yourself and one's own integrity. My thought would be to confront the female friend and encourage her to be honest and make amends. If she doesn't, tell her husband. Friendships might be lost but what kind of friendship is this when duplicity and deception is rewarded and enabled?
One our the couples in our tight-knit 'couple group' recently divorced. The wife completely blindsided the husband by walking out on him after 28 years of marriage, citing unhappiness. The rest of our group had speculated (and some even had decent evidence) that the wife had been cheating for years, but none of us wanted to bring it up to the husband. It turns out the day she walked out, she walked right into the arms of ONE of the men she had been cheating with, literally for years. In hindsight, we all truly regret not telling the husband what we had heard/discovered over the years. He is one of he nicest people you'd ever meet and is truly devastated at one, the loss of his marriage and two, the cheating. If I had to do it over again, as long as there is substantial proof, I'd tell the spouse in a heartbeat. They deserve to know they are being duped.
9
I loved the line: "Moral narcissism is about being more concerned with the cleanliness of your hands than with how your conduct shapes the lives around you." Perfectly said!
9
I agree with the other posters here that Jane is insufferably self centered and that the letter writer is morally obliged to refuse to buttress what he knows to be lies in order to facilitate her selfish, reckless behavior.
I also agree absolutely with the idea that someone who cheats on their intimate partner is highly likely to do so with more than one person. Sexual adventurism carries terrible health risks and Peter is blithely unaware that he is very vulnerable to infection due to Jane's infidelity. This is a more consequential moral issue than an uncomfortable complicity in Jane's lies.
The letter writer should tell Jane that, while her affair per se is not his business, she cannot use him to continue to cover it up. At the same time, the risk involved to her husband's health makes it imperative that she either tell Peter or insist that they both are regularly tested for STDs. The rationale for such a demand can be left to Jane's creative storytelling.
I also agree absolutely with the idea that someone who cheats on their intimate partner is highly likely to do so with more than one person. Sexual adventurism carries terrible health risks and Peter is blithely unaware that he is very vulnerable to infection due to Jane's infidelity. This is a more consequential moral issue than an uncomfortable complicity in Jane's lies.
The letter writer should tell Jane that, while her affair per se is not his business, she cannot use him to continue to cover it up. At the same time, the risk involved to her husband's health makes it imperative that she either tell Peter or insist that they both are regularly tested for STDs. The rationale for such a demand can be left to Jane's creative storytelling.
7
Easy. Let Jane know that you plan to tell Peter about the affair, and give her the opportunity to end it or tell Peter herself. If she doesn't take you seriously, bring another friend to tell her one more time. If she chooses to continue the affair and doesn't tell Peter, then you can now let Peter know with a free conscience, knowing that you have not betrayed Jane. There are too many variables to try to determine the outcome, but compromising your integrity is absolutely not OK.
3
Of course, in a murder mystery or film noir, this would lead to Jane bumping NW off.
Sure, this is real life, not fiction, but with Jane displaying such a high level of narcissism and selfishness over a long enough period to suggest narcissistic personality disorder or worse, would *you* want to risk it?
Sure, this is real life, not fiction, but with Jane displaying such a high level of narcissism and selfishness over a long enough period to suggest narcissistic personality disorder or worse, would *you* want to risk it?
1
Better yet...
Find out who Martin is married to and let her know.......and let it cascade from there.
Find out who Martin is married to and let her know.......and let it cascade from there.
If you do 'the right thing', it will end up in disaster and sadness for every one.
Having a happy feeling inside that you did 'the right thing', is no substitute for destroyed homes, it's just you feeling good about you.
Jane decided to live her life like this, it's her choice. Allow her to live her life as she has chosen. It's not up to you to decided what is best for her, based on an internal 'happy feeling' because you did the morally right thing to do.
Besides, maybe this is the only way she can cope in life. Why take that away from her?
Having a happy feeling inside that you did 'the right thing', is no substitute for destroyed homes, it's just you feeling good about you.
Jane decided to live her life like this, it's her choice. Allow her to live her life as she has chosen. It's not up to you to decided what is best for her, based on an internal 'happy feeling' because you did the morally right thing to do.
Besides, maybe this is the only way she can cope in life. Why take that away from her?
3
People find out they are stronger than they think when they are faced adversity. Jane needs to cope with the hard truth and stop lying to people and trying to get other people to lie for her.
I don't think I could stomach watching someone be made the fool, much less partake in making him the fool.
I don't think I could stomach watching someone be made the fool, much less partake in making him the fool.
Glad to see all the posts pointing out the horrible thing Jane did when she pushed the writer into the deception. He needs to let her know if she tries that again, he will tell the truth on the spot. He should also place boundaries about her even mentioning Martin to him. Otherwise, it is none of his business and it is best to stay out of it.
2
Yes, exactly. And the writer needs to think about why he considers Jane a good friend. Friends don't make friends uncomfortable. She is using him.
Since this is already a Foobar of a situation. Be a friend to both individuals. Send a printed letter with evidence of the betrayal to the husband. More than likely the she wants it over anyway, additionally not sure if this couple has kids yet, if not save the guy a life of paying child support and a child the drama that this woman causes around her.
3
The advice given here is horrifying. So much focus on the "loyalty" one "owes" to a friend, even if that friend is a destructive liar - so little attention given to the destruction which will inevitably be caused by a pervasive, years-long lie.
"Peter finds out after many years," the letter-writer conjectures, "his marriage is destroyed, he is deeply hurt..."
This will definitely happen. This is what ALWAYS happens in these situations. Anyone who has discovered, or seen a friend discover, a spouse or S/0's cheating has seen it happen. Numerous friendships are ruined, the victims of deceit suffer lasting emotional consequences. This often hits women harder than men, because cheating men tend to be very callous about it, but that doesn't mean this Peter will bear up under it. The emotional effects of a years-long deceit unraveling a relationship can leave anyone devastated for years. Allowing this to go on will only compound the pain and trauma later. Allowing it to go on because of the "loyalty" to a friend is the expression of a horrific moral principle - "it's okay for people to lie to, and hurt, those who they care about, as long as the liar is my friend".
"Peter finds out after many years," the letter-writer conjectures, "his marriage is destroyed, he is deeply hurt..."
This will definitely happen. This is what ALWAYS happens in these situations. Anyone who has discovered, or seen a friend discover, a spouse or S/0's cheating has seen it happen. Numerous friendships are ruined, the victims of deceit suffer lasting emotional consequences. This often hits women harder than men, because cheating men tend to be very callous about it, but that doesn't mean this Peter will bear up under it. The emotional effects of a years-long deceit unraveling a relationship can leave anyone devastated for years. Allowing this to go on will only compound the pain and trauma later. Allowing it to go on because of the "loyalty" to a friend is the expression of a horrific moral principle - "it's okay for people to lie to, and hurt, those who they care about, as long as the liar is my friend".
9
I think you people need to lighten up a little. She's only doing it with martin once a year. To think that once you get married your spouse can provide for all your sexual needs is ridculous. It sounds look a good arrangement for all involved. I would keep my mouth shut.
3
It's not about "providing for your sexual needs." It's about commitment, deception, manipulation, and selfishness. It's only a good arrangement if everyone knows what's happening and has consented to it. In that case (which is not this case), there is no ethical dilemma at all.
1
Reggie... I think a lot of people would agree with you if Jane and her husband had an open relationship. But, they don't and that's the issue.... they lying.
I don't understand how you could conclude something is good for everyone involved when some parties are not aware that they're involved.
Perhaps you need to be in Jane's husband's place, then speak on whether or not it's good for all involved. Or maybe you don't have a problem with being lied to and humiliated?
Perhaps you need to be in Jane's husband's place, then speak on whether or not it's good for all involved. Or maybe you don't have a problem with being lied to and humiliated?
This has been my world for the past year. "Jane", my very best friend (I am a woman). "Peter" her husband, also a friend about whom I care very much. "Martin" a man I know well, in certain settings, who is also married. Jane told me about her years-long affair, I tried to be okay with it, to appreciate the joy that it brought Jane, to "mind my own business" and accept that humans are messy. 9 months later, the combination of the burden of the secret, plus my own morals around adultery, has destroyed a friendship. It has been excruciating in that I've just wanted things to be the way they were - before I knew, before the affair, and they can't be. I want my best friend to be the person who I thought she was and the person that the rest of the world sees. I am not without compassion for her but I need to do what feels clean for me and my conscience. NW you are in a painful situation and whatever you do will create heartache. You have to decide what feels right within your heart and move from there. No one else can tell you what is the "best" thing to do in this situation because no one else feels the intricacies of your friendships. Know that whatever decision(s) you make about telling or not, remaining friends or not, keeping secrets or not, there will be pain, and there will also be the relief of knowing that you did what was best for you. I am sorry you are here - it is a very difficult place to be.
33
By staying silent nothing is accomplished. By staying silent you are complicit in the deception and in some ways just as guilty as she is.
If it was me I would sit down with Jane and tell her that you can't participate in the deception anymore. It's very likely you could lose your friendship with her. However, being used by her is worse in my opinion. There is a lot of history of you knowing about this, but by telling her "no mas" with you as an alibi, then she has to shoulder the entire deception herself from this day forward.
The whole situation is awful but you can extricate yourself and hopefully be the wiser the rest of your life. I had this happen in college with my best friend who was lying to his girlfriend about his whereabouts. He wanted me to cover for him and I said no. He didn't speak to me again for more than 10 years. That was 40 years ago and I look back on it and I'm glad I did what I did at the time although it hurt a lot to lose his friendship for so long.
If it was me I would sit down with Jane and tell her that you can't participate in the deception anymore. It's very likely you could lose your friendship with her. However, being used by her is worse in my opinion. There is a lot of history of you knowing about this, but by telling her "no mas" with you as an alibi, then she has to shoulder the entire deception herself from this day forward.
The whole situation is awful but you can extricate yourself and hopefully be the wiser the rest of your life. I had this happen in college with my best friend who was lying to his girlfriend about his whereabouts. He wanted me to cover for him and I said no. He didn't speak to me again for more than 10 years. That was 40 years ago and I look back on it and I'm glad I did what I did at the time although it hurt a lot to lose his friendship for so long.
5
Jesus said that the truth will set free. Jane needs to be told that what she is doing is wrong toward all those involved including her husband, the wife and children of the other adulterer, and all other accomplices in this mess. She should tell the truth. If she refuses, then I would refuse to be her friend; if her husband asked me to explain myself, I would tell him that his spouse is a poor friend and she needs to get things right. I would not tell him specifically what is happening, but create significant doubt and let him then go and figure it out -- which would not be difficult.
3
I really liked your answer. It is the most clarifying solution.
1
Thank you, magazine, for finally getting it right again with the Ethicist column. This setup (with Appiah alone) is so much better, more interesting, and more relevant to the title of the column, than the group-answering version you had going before (which felt more like a gossip chat than an exercise in ethical decision-making). I appreciate the fact that Appiah didn't try to give a "right answer" here in a situation that doesn't really have one; articulating the stakes in their various dimensions is more instructive for the reader and truer to life's dilemmas.
4
Is it me? Or does everyone commenting sound a bit too "holier than thou?"
People cheat. It's not always a betrayal. It's usually not out of malice. You can argue the morals of it all you want, but it's going to happen. The original writer, NM, even points out that it might be a therapeutic release for his friend Jane. I'm not an adulterer, nor do I ever want to be. But I'm honest enough with myself to know that it happens A LOT. That's not going to change because of an ethical argument here or there.
I'm proud of "NW" for keeping his mouth shut and having his friends back. If she wants it, that's her right. If he's not comfortable lying about it, that's fine too, and he should tell HER to not get him involved. Insofar that he is involved, and hasn't made his displeasure known, he should keep his trap shut and backup his friend. That's what friends do. There is nothing more true than the adage, "Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies."
People cheat. It's not always a betrayal. It's usually not out of malice. You can argue the morals of it all you want, but it's going to happen. The original writer, NM, even points out that it might be a therapeutic release for his friend Jane. I'm not an adulterer, nor do I ever want to be. But I'm honest enough with myself to know that it happens A LOT. That's not going to change because of an ethical argument here or there.
I'm proud of "NW" for keeping his mouth shut and having his friends back. If she wants it, that's her right. If he's not comfortable lying about it, that's fine too, and he should tell HER to not get him involved. Insofar that he is involved, and hasn't made his displeasure known, he should keep his trap shut and backup his friend. That's what friends do. There is nothing more true than the adage, "Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies."
1
Lying is cowardly. Cowardice is nothing to be proud of. Although Jane's intent may not be to hurt her husband, it's at the same time, not to "not" hurt him. She's disregarding him as a person, as if he's not worthy of something she is worthy of.
Call it holier-than-thou all you like, but the lying would make my stomach turn.
Call it holier-than-thou all you like, but the lying would make my stomach turn.
1
What's the big deal? This situation isn't ideal, but nobody is getting hurt so long as no one knows. Of course it would be better if Jane were totally satisfied with her husband, but having a brief fling once or twice a year with an old flame seems a pretty harmless way to keep her happy and keep their marriages intact. Marriage is difficult and sometimes it takes more than two people to make it work. See the movie "Same Time, Next Year" (as someone else has already suggested). I agree though that she shouldn't ask her pal to lie for her.
3
So the husband's happiness is irrelevant? If if takes more than two, than be honest about it.
I find it ironic how a lot of the people who see nothing wrong with a deceitful affair, will criminalize polygamy?
I find it ironic how a lot of the people who see nothing wrong with a deceitful affair, will criminalize polygamy?
The writer answered his own question. If his conjuring becomes reality (Peter demands how he could help Jane lie for years) and he "doesn't know what he'd say," his conscience has already figured it out.
Part ways with this couple (regardless of the nature or length of the friendships) or take responsibility for your part in the deception. Choose the option you can live with.
Part ways with this couple (regardless of the nature or length of the friendships) or take responsibility for your part in the deception. Choose the option you can live with.
4
Excellent advice. Both are living truthfully and authenticalky.
In my opinion, stay out of it the best you can. Don't affirmatively lie, don't reveal the truth. It's not really your business.
1
Nice to hear from you, Jane, after all these years. Great trick sending the letter in as a "friend" and getting the NY Times and its readers to be implicated in your narcissism. Getting a bit long in the tooth for this sort of thing, though, aren't you?
5
I'm a bit amazed and horrified by the degree to which commenters (and the Ethicist) think you have a responsibility to Jane to help her maintain the web of deceit she has constructed to con her husband.
If she warned you in advance that she would be recruiting you in the conversation to reinforce her deceit, shame on you. That was the time to say no. If she didn't, you had no obligation to jump in to help shore up the edifice of lies. "Did you receive the photos I texted?" "No, I received no photos." And to make your position absolutely clear, adding "I didn't know you went on a business trip to San Francisco," making your point that you won't be drawn in quite memorably.
Many here seem worried about Jane's right to manage her marriage however she likes. While she might have such a right, it ends where her relationships meet the rest of the world. You also have the right to construct your life and your relationships with people you meet on an honest basis. An important reason we learn as kids not to try to control other people with webs of lies is that, eventually, you may bump into an honest fellow who will bring the whole thing down on your head.
You have no obligation to assist Jane with balancing the teetering mass of duplicity she has constructed, and you have a right to be true to your own ideals. It would be interesting to read the Ethicist's reply to Jane's complaint that a friend had refused to help with her efforts to hoodwink her husband.
If she warned you in advance that she would be recruiting you in the conversation to reinforce her deceit, shame on you. That was the time to say no. If she didn't, you had no obligation to jump in to help shore up the edifice of lies. "Did you receive the photos I texted?" "No, I received no photos." And to make your position absolutely clear, adding "I didn't know you went on a business trip to San Francisco," making your point that you won't be drawn in quite memorably.
Many here seem worried about Jane's right to manage her marriage however she likes. While she might have such a right, it ends where her relationships meet the rest of the world. You also have the right to construct your life and your relationships with people you meet on an honest basis. An important reason we learn as kids not to try to control other people with webs of lies is that, eventually, you may bump into an honest fellow who will bring the whole thing down on your head.
You have no obligation to assist Jane with balancing the teetering mass of duplicity she has constructed, and you have a right to be true to your own ideals. It would be interesting to read the Ethicist's reply to Jane's complaint that a friend had refused to help with her efforts to hoodwink her husband.
9
I read the comments and laugh. What goes on in a marriage is secret. we have no idea who knows what about whom. What a judgmental response Mr Appiah..Since when does being married mean only having sex with your spouse for the rest of your life ( religious stuff i'm sure).Thats middle class nonsense. What century do you live in and that rule has only ever applied to women.That was so men could be sure they were not raising another mans children. Fidelity is about controlling women and bloodlines!
My take is this is a sexist response, everyone still sexual dreams of others and sometimes find a lover. Marriage is a choice, staying with someone is a choice and the the simple truth of long marriages not fidelity..
My guess is Peter knows and "the Man" who asks this I wonder why If he is such close friends with Jane he doesn't speak to her about his feelings about her sex life. This is a not the whole tale!
FYI, research shows that few people leave their marriage over infidelity .
My take is this is a sexist response, everyone still sexual dreams of others and sometimes find a lover. Marriage is a choice, staying with someone is a choice and the the simple truth of long marriages not fidelity..
My guess is Peter knows and "the Man" who asks this I wonder why If he is such close friends with Jane he doesn't speak to her about his feelings about her sex life. This is a not the whole tale!
FYI, research shows that few people leave their marriage over infidelity .
1
What research is that?
(Oh. I see.)
(Oh. I see.)
1
Have you considered that maybe Peter already know or suspects what's going on? Won't you want to see the pictures of your mate at the Golden Gate? You'll be surprise how many people play "the great pretender". Many people have plenty of information to come up with the conclusion that their mates are cheating, but they don't want to acknowledge. Who are you to denounce the sins of others? I would definitely tell Jane please don't get me involved in your lies. But I would not get involve in matters that only concern to the married couple.
2
It sickens me to read most of these responses. Have any of you people with your confident opinions ever been the VICTIM of an extramarital affair? It's the most painful, gut-wrenching, life-devastating thing that can ever happen to anyone. It is psychologically demoralizing and damaging for life. It physically hurts. Self-esteem and self-worth become a daily battle to hold on to. Anger, anxiety and suspicion never fully go away. Semi-recovery is possible, but you can never be the same person again. Unless you've lost your child to a death at a young age, you can't really understand how horrific the damage is. And every day the affair goes on (or has gone on) is like adding one more cancerous tumor...no matter how bad it already is, one more is worse. The perpetrator is generally so self-absorbed that he or she is blind to the damage he or she is doing to the very person he or she promised to love for life. So the answer to the question in this article is: YES, bring the affair into the light. Do it gently with love and care for both parties, but especially for the victim who is about to have his world turned upside down. He WILL find out eventually. They always do. And the longer it goes on in secret, the more damage it will do to the victim. If you actually care about this guy at all, then be there for him; help stop the growth of the cancer he doesn't yet know he has; and help him to transition though the inevitable pain.
10
Wow -powerful and true.
Overwrought and shouldn't be compared to a child's death or cancer...but overall a good argument for honesty.
I agree that the writer shouldn't be asked to lie, but I don't understand the comments saying Jane should be dumped as a friend. People aren't all good or all evil... good people may do questionable things, but still have many redeeming qualities. Plus, people in glass houses, and all that. I'm thankful my own friends are less judgmental than the NY Times commenters!
3
Is dragging someone into your lie an act of a friend? "She's" not being a friend to him.
So much judgement of the lives of others. In another time and place, the "truth-tellers" here would have someone stoned for this "crime." Agreed, "Jane" shouldn't have forced the writer to lie, but beyond that, what is happening here is nobody's business but the people involved. Emotional entanglements and marriages are complicated, messy things and nobody can ever force them into simplistic boxes just because they make a claim to moral authority.
As the Bard says:
When my love swears that she is made of truth
I do believe her, though I know she lies,
That she might think me some untutor'd youth,
Unlearned in the world's false subtleties.
Thus vainly thinking that she thinks me young,
Although she knows my days are past the best,
Simply I credit her false speaking tongue:
On both sides thus is simple truth suppress'd.
But wherefore says she not she is unjust?
And wherefore say not I that I am old?
O, love's best habit is in seeming trust,
And age in love loves not to have years told:
Therefore I lie with her and she with me,
And in our faults by lies we flatter'd be.
As the Bard says:
When my love swears that she is made of truth
I do believe her, though I know she lies,
That she might think me some untutor'd youth,
Unlearned in the world's false subtleties.
Thus vainly thinking that she thinks me young,
Although she knows my days are past the best,
Simply I credit her false speaking tongue:
On both sides thus is simple truth suppress'd.
But wherefore says she not she is unjust?
And wherefore say not I that I am old?
O, love's best habit is in seeming trust,
And age in love loves not to have years told:
Therefore I lie with her and she with me,
And in our faults by lies we flatter'd be.
5
Advice from a guy who bequeathed his *second-best* bed to his wife upon his passing?
You can never know what goes on behind closed doors. Before doing anything make absolutely sure of the facts.
3
Jane and Peter have a "good" marriage, you say. Really? - Yes, tell. First, tell Martin that you know. Jane already told you. If they continue to carry on their fling, then tell Peter. If he does not mind, so be it. If he does, he should know and get out. Sooner or later he is bound to find out. Sooner or later, the marriage will fail because of all the lying and deception. And then you are caught up in it as well... but that, perhaps, is what you want. Be honest. Maybe down deep you have the "hots" for Jane, but won't admit it to yourself or, being a "quirky intellectual" you relish the intrigue of it all.
2
If I were in your shoes and felt no good from revealing this secret, I would take the following stance. Tell Jane you understand the bonds she has with both her husband and Martin. However, in the future, when she goes on these "business trips" let her know you will not be part of and participate in the deception and help her lie to Peter. As strange as it sounds, if you tell Peter about the affair it may backfire and they may both end up mad at you and the friendship with both people may end. There have been countless times when the spouse being cheated on did not know and seemingly everyone around them knew and did not say anything. Marriage and intimate relationships are not always what they seem and love is truly blind. Don't tell but don't continue I assisting your friend with deceiving her spouse either.
4
My husband actually stumbled upon knowledge of a co-worker/friend having an affair. We were all young with young children. After much discussion he chose not to tell the wife, his co-worker that her husband was involved with another woman. Years later there was an unwanted child, a nasty divorce with children old enough to understand, and ongoing consequences that to this day seem never ending. It was a horrible to watch it all unfold for years. I still feel anger and disgust when I think of how it all played out and that we, innocent, were in on it. Tell the husband. Then separate yourself from them all. She is not your friend. He will not like you for telling him.
46
That's called "hit and run." A very cowardly, destructive action to take and from which to absent yourself of the consequences.
1
So... set other people's lives on fire, and then run away? Where is the morality and ethics in that? It's not right to ruin other people's lives just so you can have a clear conscience.
1
As others have noted, life is messy and complicated.
There is no absolute right or wrong answer here, there is only a judgment call based on an individual's ethics, their interpretation of all the so called facts, and what "living with integrity" means for them.
Personally, I'd keep quiet and stay out of it to the degree possible, yet I would not lie to cover for another liar and her deceit in general.
You do the best you can in these situations based on your own values. Friends who don't share a few of your key values are generally not good friends.
There is no absolute right or wrong answer here, there is only a judgment call based on an individual's ethics, their interpretation of all the so called facts, and what "living with integrity" means for them.
Personally, I'd keep quiet and stay out of it to the degree possible, yet I would not lie to cover for another liar and her deceit in general.
You do the best you can in these situations based on your own values. Friends who don't share a few of your key values are generally not good friends.
3
Yes, this is my take.
Probably the letter writer's neutral stance has encouraged her to think he doesn't disapprove of her behavior. He should rectify that impression. If she's stand-up (other than the affair, which is bad but no crime), she'll work hard to avoid making him cover for her again.
Probably the letter writer's neutral stance has encouraged her to think he doesn't disapprove of her behavior. He should rectify that impression. If she's stand-up (other than the affair, which is bad but no crime), she'll work hard to avoid making him cover for her again.
Gosh, who wouldn't want two weekends of deceitful sex each year with a person from another country? The only problem is the old adage "everyone wants to go to the circus, but nobody wants to live there" could not be more true in this case.
I think the thoughtful letter-writer can do much better as far as choosing friends goes.
I think the thoughtful letter-writer can do much better as far as choosing friends goes.
2
This story is made up. The give away is the second last paragraph in which Name Withheld says, "I think the affair may be good for everyone." Then why is he writing to a third-party and going through all of the details if he has already made a decision?
If there is any truth to this story, Name Withheld is obviously hard-up for friends. Any responsible person would have long ago told Jane that he will not be a party to her lies and move on. According to the story, it appears that the so-called friendship between Jane and Name Withheld was not a life long friendship from, say, childhood or family. It was established through a business relationship. Move on. Don't you have other clients or business associates? Further if there is any truth to this story, as another comment has said, Name Withheld doesn't need an ethicist. He needs a therapist to find out why he considers Jane a friend, after he has willingly allowed Jane to draw him into lying to another friend, Peter.
I can appreciate the value of anonymous sources from time to time, but it's regrettable and beneath the NYT to write puff pieces. If the NYT wants to withhold the name of someone, fine. It has done so in the past on important matters. But in a piece like this, the bona fides of Name Withheld must be established. The NYT spends millions on investigating many things. I am curious to know what the NYT did to establish whether Name Withheld is a real person and is telling the truth.
If there is any truth to this story, Name Withheld is obviously hard-up for friends. Any responsible person would have long ago told Jane that he will not be a party to her lies and move on. According to the story, it appears that the so-called friendship between Jane and Name Withheld was not a life long friendship from, say, childhood or family. It was established through a business relationship. Move on. Don't you have other clients or business associates? Further if there is any truth to this story, as another comment has said, Name Withheld doesn't need an ethicist. He needs a therapist to find out why he considers Jane a friend, after he has willingly allowed Jane to draw him into lying to another friend, Peter.
I can appreciate the value of anonymous sources from time to time, but it's regrettable and beneath the NYT to write puff pieces. If the NYT wants to withhold the name of someone, fine. It has done so in the past on important matters. But in a piece like this, the bona fides of Name Withheld must be established. The NYT spends millions on investigating many things. I am curious to know what the NYT did to establish whether Name Withheld is a real person and is telling the truth.
3
Agreed. Something doesn't add up. I'm inclined to think that Jane is Name Withheld's sister. Or, it's as you suggest - complete rubbish.
Made-up or not. Situations like this do occur, and people do ponder over whether or not to tell.
Well, there is another alternative, albeit not a popular one these days. There is the question of Right and Wrong. In anyone's book (that I have ever known anyway) adultery is Wrong and not subject to any demands of loyalty. Jane is wrong, no question about it. Peter needs to know the truth and then make his own decision about it. If you have even a passing interest in what is Right, you need to let the man know his wife is a fraud. After you tell him, don't forget to duck.
Earth to Name Withheld: Jane is using you, she's not your friend.
6
Odd commentary and advice, if you were to ask me ! Seems to me that what you 'do' to each other is your business. What you 'due' to me via involvement is my biz . It is simple - goodbye and i would distance myself from them permanently.
Dishonesty is never right; it keeps us from getting a good night's sleep.
In answer to questions such as the picture question, how about, "No, I did not" ? Give the problem to whom it belongs--Jane.
2
As children, we learn that we will live "happily ever after," and, it seems, we remain submerged in the myth of a monogamous marriage as adults and condemn an "adulterer" with the authority of the Bible, even though somewhere else it states, "judge he not..." or should we just move on to stoning her to death, just as the Good Book instructs? We're all full of caca and lie when we believe that we must--at work, at home, and in relationships with others, especially a spouse. I bow to those of you who are courageous enough to live your life unlearning the emotional and social bonds that enslaved your parents and their parents before them. Perhaps, one day, you will choose to live your truth, regardless of the consequences. You will be condemned.
3
The Good Book does not instruct us to stone the adulteress and neither did Jesus for that matter.
I have an old friend -- a woman who was in Peter's situation. Although I didn't know about her husband's affairs (yes, more than one), others friends did. No one told her. When she discovered the situation, she felt deeply humiliated by the failure of her relationship but, naively perhaps, thought no one else knew except those directly involved. And the affairs were with people she had thought were her friends as well as her husband's. It was an emotional injustice whose damage will probably never go away entirely.
I would tell Peter, apologize, and explain the long-term quandary that led to keeping silent for so long. Let Jane deal with it as she will. She is selfish and manipulative, willing to use others to serve her own ends, and has no respect for honest relationships. (What about Martin's wife and children? The possibility of harming them is obviously of no interest to her, either.)
Peter is an adult. He'll make his own decision about his marriage.
Then I would go make some new friends.
I would tell Peter, apologize, and explain the long-term quandary that led to keeping silent for so long. Let Jane deal with it as she will. She is selfish and manipulative, willing to use others to serve her own ends, and has no respect for honest relationships. (What about Martin's wife and children? The possibility of harming them is obviously of no interest to her, either.)
Peter is an adult. He'll make his own decision about his marriage.
Then I would go make some new friends.
3
Having been in a long relationship unaware of being repeatedly deceived and lied to, what I think is really important is not the eventual inevitable loss of the relationship but the loss of time. We don't have the same possibilities at all times, and as we age our love prospects also change.
1
Maybe it's her affair what spices up her marriage twice a year. As long as she keeps it secret from her husband everything is alright. Since he doesn't really know what's going on in her friend marriage, the best solution is to keep his mouth shut and tell her not to involve him again any form, way or shape. Myself, I never regretted what I didn't say...
1
Good Advice but I disagree on one fundamental point. Adultery does not necessarily mean that the marriage is in trouble or sick in any way. The monogamy storybook model Americans adopted in the 20th century is problematic. For centuries prior to ours (like it or not) couples remained together regardless of a husband's extramarital activities because it would financially ruin the woman were she divorced. Cuckoldry unfortunately did not fare as well for a woman and in extreme cases barbaric cultures would stone a female adulterer. Obviously with the progress of female independence in the last 150 years the rules are very different but why should they result in a monogamy for life paradigm? Perhaps the occasional straying helped someone get over a certain period of time that led to an even deeper commitment to the spouse in the long term.
1
Wow, seems you are overlooking the obvious. I would contact Martin and Jane and inform both, unless they invite you to the party, everyone will be told about this long term party.
Seriously Jane is using you and you have allowed yourself to become complicit in this mess. Jane is not a friend you should trust.
Seriously Jane is using you and you have allowed yourself to become complicit in this mess. Jane is not a friend you should trust.
2
"Name withheld" should find new friends and new activities that take up a lot of time away from Jane and Peter. Jane should consider French citizenship.
I have to wonder if "Name withheld" is married. I suspect if he is, his wife would have an issue with his being drawn into Jane's deceit and a kind of creepy emotional intimacy with Jane. And perhaps behind the whole ethical question is the "creepy intimacy", an unnamed aspect of this scenario. Over time we leave some long standing acquaintances behind when their cumulative behavior becomes clear and incompatible.
I have to wonder if "Name withheld" is married. I suspect if he is, his wife would have an issue with his being drawn into Jane's deceit and a kind of creepy emotional intimacy with Jane. And perhaps behind the whole ethical question is the "creepy intimacy", an unnamed aspect of this scenario. Over time we leave some long standing acquaintances behind when their cumulative behavior becomes clear and incompatible.
2
What hot jollies is the writer getting out of knowing about Jane's affair? Stop with the vicarious living, and wake up to the fact that you and Jane are not friends: you are both users of the other.
4
Without taking a position on the actual question, I'm surprised that everyone seems to think the once or twice a year weekend in the hotel is so reprehensible. Leaving the question of lying to your husband aside for a moment, the writer's observation that it might actually be good for his friends' marriage is not nonsense. Without those 2 weekends Jane might be sitting in bars looking for a pickup. The conversation, it seems to me, should be between the writer and Jane. Perhaps an extensive one. And after that conversation, the writer is out of it. If it takes severing the friendship in order to resolve his own disturbing concerns, so be it. The lying could destroy the marriage. The two weekends should not. Let's be a little less rigid about sexual mores.
3
It's not for the writer to judge whether Jane's affair is good for the marriage; that's for the married couple to decide.
And it's not just occasional sex. Jane says her liaison is "the love of her life," yet she married 2 other guys (vowing love and constancy to each). She lied to both husbands, and is self-delusional. Occasional sex (and whatever messaging) is not a true relationship, much less a "love of her life." By maintaining two false connections, she is preventing herself from having any truly loving one.
And it's not just occasional sex. Jane says her liaison is "the love of her life," yet she married 2 other guys (vowing love and constancy to each). She lied to both husbands, and is self-delusional. Occasional sex (and whatever messaging) is not a true relationship, much less a "love of her life." By maintaining two false connections, she is preventing herself from having any truly loving one.
Honesty brings clarity. Clarity gives birth to reality. Being Honest with Jane is the first step. Once you are honest with her, you can then begin to draw your boundaries in relation to Jane. Every long standing relationship has healthy boundaries established. Most often, the boundaries have been redefined over time. However, this only begins when you become honest with your self, and then Jane. The clarity of your honesty only begins with, and stays with you. Good luck
This is by a professor of philosophy?!
Maybe Rubio was right in calling for more welders! :-). (Just kidding, folks! We need more liberal arts majors not fewer--as well as better professors of philosophy!)
What happened to the classic advice? He should tell friend Jane that if she doesn't come clean, he will tell he husband. And, to make that work, he will have a talk with him at a date certain to confirm. Of course, she'll throw him under the bus and tell husband Peter that he is making up stories. However, all it will take is for them to ask her to produce the photos of the Golden Gate Bridge!
Lies, deceit, betrayal, adultery need to come to an end.
I do worry about the man with the problem, though-- lying to cover up adultery?! Sorry, but no honesty there.
Now, before flaming this no-nonsense approach, the key point is that a professor of philosophy should have a much deeper analysis of moral principles, ethics, relativism, absolutism, Rawlsian principles of justice, etc. we should learn something deeper about the nature of the principles involved in such dilemmas, not merely read advice that anyone of us non-philosophers could have dispensed!
Maybe Rubio was right in calling for more welders! :-). (Just kidding, folks! We need more liberal arts majors not fewer--as well as better professors of philosophy!)
What happened to the classic advice? He should tell friend Jane that if she doesn't come clean, he will tell he husband. And, to make that work, he will have a talk with him at a date certain to confirm. Of course, she'll throw him under the bus and tell husband Peter that he is making up stories. However, all it will take is for them to ask her to produce the photos of the Golden Gate Bridge!
Lies, deceit, betrayal, adultery need to come to an end.
I do worry about the man with the problem, though-- lying to cover up adultery?! Sorry, but no honesty there.
Now, before flaming this no-nonsense approach, the key point is that a professor of philosophy should have a much deeper analysis of moral principles, ethics, relativism, absolutism, Rawlsian principles of justice, etc. we should learn something deeper about the nature of the principles involved in such dilemmas, not merely read advice that anyone of us non-philosophers could have dispensed!
4
Part of the fun of an affair is the danger of being caught. I suspect this is why Jane made her comment about texts, she wanted that frisson that comes with not being entirely sure if this is the moment when all will be revealed. So, the letter writer became part of her fun. I totally agree with the commenters who recommend telling her to leave him out of future plays. But, she will try, no doubt about it. The letter writer's warning will make her next attempt, and probable victory, all the more thrilling and exciting. Her friendship might not, overall, be worth having.
1
I don't support adulterers but we, outsiders, never know "what goes on behind closed doors" in marriages relationship etc but, I wold keep my trap, mouth, shut! And say nothing to no one !
3
"Name Withheld" needs to have a serious, frank talk with Jane in which he affirms his feelings of friendship toward her, but states firmly that he resents being pulled into the intrigue (the Golden Gate Bridge fiction). He must tell her without apology that he will not lie for her. True, her adultery is none of his business, but his friendship with her husband IS his business, as is his need to be truthful. If such a talk puts a damper on their friendship, so be it. He may lose a longtime friend, but a dishonest friend who manipulates him into sharing in her deceit. And here is the question in the back of my mind: Is Name Withheld married? If so, it seems to me that he should try to put himself in Peter's shoes and think about how he would feel if Peter were in HIS shoes.
If the writer had been a woman, I highly doubt that Jane would have made that comment about the photos. She sounds like a manipulative woman who likes to have men on strings that she can tweak for her own gratification. The writer sounds titillated by it, or at least titillated by being in on this drama; titillated enough that he seeks attention by "asking for advice" in such a public forum.
The writer seems to like hearing about the affair and Jane enjoys telling him. What if it was all made up and Martin really had no bigger role in her life than the writer? Could "Martin" be a story she tells the writer just to keep him coming back for more vicarious drama? That would explain the oddity of deliberately dropping the line about the photos, which is significant in itself. She went out of her way to create a gaffe that attracted attention; it wasn't just an accident where she was caught in a lie. In the end it all sounds like childish attention getting. I guess it works; she got the writer's attention.
The writer seems to like hearing about the affair and Jane enjoys telling him. What if it was all made up and Martin really had no bigger role in her life than the writer? Could "Martin" be a story she tells the writer just to keep him coming back for more vicarious drama? That would explain the oddity of deliberately dropping the line about the photos, which is significant in itself. She went out of her way to create a gaffe that attracted attention; it wasn't just an accident where she was caught in a lie. In the end it all sounds like childish attention getting. I guess it works; she got the writer's attention.
1
The letter writer has an inappropriate relationship with a married woman. Unless Jane is actually his sister, which to me is the only explanation for:
1. how this friendship between Jane and the letter writer has survived,
2. why the letter writer has empathy towards her and feels compelled to remain "loyal," and
3. what would make this an authentic moral dilemma.
If she isn't your sibling, this is a no-brainer and I fear your own marriage is in trouble. If she is, what do you owe Jane and what do you owe your brother-in-law? Be honest and forthright with your sister. It is the loving thing to do. Be honest with your brother-in-law. It is the loving and ethical thing to do.
1. how this friendship between Jane and the letter writer has survived,
2. why the letter writer has empathy towards her and feels compelled to remain "loyal," and
3. what would make this an authentic moral dilemma.
If she isn't your sibling, this is a no-brainer and I fear your own marriage is in trouble. If she is, what do you owe Jane and what do you owe your brother-in-law? Be honest and forthright with your sister. It is the loving thing to do. Be honest with your brother-in-law. It is the loving and ethical thing to do.
2
i really don't think the human animal was ment to be monogamous As a friend of mine used to say "you can't break it , you can't wear it out " and someone else i think said "variety is the spice......" of course all parties involved need to be on board with this
I somewhat agree with the idea of "moral narcissism" with relation to the husband and wife, though I believe it is arguable whether or not the husband should be told. But if the writer is uncomfortable with the situation - as he should be - then I wholly disagree with the supposition that "ending the friendship fixes nothing". These married people (the wife in particular) have no right to put the writer in this situation. I believe that because of his level of discomfort, there are only two options - if one discounts the idea of "moral narcissism", then the husband should be told and let the chips fall where they may. If one subscribes to this idea, then the friendship should be ended because the writer has a right to a clean conscience.
One final thought to "The Ethicist": You missed a very important point - you speak of loyalty owed the wife vs. loyalty owed to the husband. Loyalty is not owed...it is earned...and whatever loyalty this wife earned over the years was severely compromised when she betrayed her friend by putting him in a position where he was force to compromise his own ethics by lying.
One final thought to "The Ethicist": You missed a very important point - you speak of loyalty owed the wife vs. loyalty owed to the husband. Loyalty is not owed...it is earned...and whatever loyalty this wife earned over the years was severely compromised when she betrayed her friend by putting him in a position where he was force to compromise his own ethics by lying.
4
Please. NW is being disingenuous. Is he in a relationship? If not, he's far too invested in someone else's marriage and needs to expand his social circle. If he is, this is a topic he and his SO should discuss how to handle when it comes up 2/year. His big omission is whether children are involved.
NW is judging someone's sex life and is narrow-minded philosophically despite his assertion to the contrary. Jane may have other lovers NW doesn't know about. Peter, too. NW has determined that Martin is Jane's soul mate and will likely never be together and projected that Peter would divorce Jane in a heartbeat. That's a lot of judgment.
Someone else's marriage is none of NW's business. So what if Peter drops him? So what if Jane drops him? Did he learn nothing in high school?
NW is judging someone's sex life and is narrow-minded philosophically despite his assertion to the contrary. Jane may have other lovers NW doesn't know about. Peter, too. NW has determined that Martin is Jane's soul mate and will likely never be together and projected that Peter would divorce Jane in a heartbeat. That's a lot of judgment.
Someone else's marriage is none of NW's business. So what if Peter drops him? So what if Jane drops him? Did he learn nothing in high school?
4
Great advice....."do nothing". What a copout. One thing I've discovered in life is that if you're uncomfortable about a situation, deal with it in a real way in order to maintain (or restore) your own integrity. I would tell Jane that much as I like her, I can't be a party to her dishonesty and disloyalty. As she probably values her relationship with Martin more than her relationship with me, that would probably mark the end of our friendship....which in turn would corner Jane to an even greater extent, as she would have to explain to Peter why I am no longer involved in their life. Sooner or later, Jane's house of cards will tumble down...and the sooner the better, for all concerned, as the alternative is a life of deceit. Anybody who has been married will know that it is rife with temptations...and a mark of strength is to simply overcome those temptations. For what is more beautiful in life than to be able to look your life partner in the eye, with nothing to hide?
2
Life is complicated, and what people need is, too. Jane is your friend. Yes, she shouldn't have done the bit about the pictures. That is creepy. But it's your friend, being a bit creepy for a moment. You can talk to her and straighten that out. As for the contents of her marriage--you know about the affair because she's your friend. If you feel conflicted because of her husband, bow out of the friendship, but be sure to explain to her why you are doing so. Don't tell her husband! You are not the police, and it's only your business as far as being her friend goes. Friends confide in each other. She confided in you about part of her life that you now disapprove of. Talk to her about this, but don't throw stones. It sounds like you have a good friendship. Honor that, even if you need to end it.
2
NW, If you can't tell her the truth, then you guys aren't really friends. Sit her down and tell her to either grow up and let go of that fantasy relationship, which is rooting in nothing but lust, or the next time her husband asked you about her trip you would not be lying. You earned the right to make such call the moment she made you part of her lie
1
"Dear Abbey" with a bit of pseudo intellectual moralizing.
1
While I agree that NW should tell Jane not to include him in her deception, he should also keep his mouth shut regardless. There's no way he can know everything that is going on in Jane and Peter's relationship and for all he knows, there may well be a lot more going on to which is isn't privy. Maybe Peter is getting a little action on the side as well. Relationships are complicated and if NW can't just accept this one with all its warts, maybe he should just extract himself.
4
Michael for LA's point "You can tell your friend Jane that you feel uncomfortable lying for her, so she needs to leave you out of conversations or stratagems related to her affair." Is a good first step but needs to go further if the writer is looking for a way out of this ethical dilemma and the ability to face husband Peter later. The writer must also tell Jane that if she wishes to remain friends with she must reconsider her affair and her lying and seek some marriage counseling. Whatever she takes however, the affair cannor be part of ANY further conversations or it will end the writers friendship with Jane immediately as he does not wish to be complicit in these actions. In this way, the friendship with Jane can remain intact, and should Peter come to you later you can honestly say 1) you knew, 2) you advised her to end it X years ago and seek counseling 3) you told her any more discussion about it would end your friendship with Jane and 4) as far as you knew it ended there.
Impressive response from The Ethicist. I think I would slowly distance myself from the situation and couple though.
2
Life is complex - men and women have had affairs for centuries. While the situation is not moral, very few people among us can be the moral lodestone to guide people.
Do you know for sure that Peter is completely faithful? What if this affair helps keep Jane stay married to Peter? What if this affair helps Martin live his life? What if this is the only thing interesting that is happening in their life and this "illicit affair" keeps them going through the shit the life throws at them.
More importantly, I would ask that you meditate and find out why this bothers you. What is so abhorrent about this that affects you so much? Why are you friends with her? Have you ever been attracted to her?
The answer to your questions lie inside you - everyone, me included, are biased.
Live the life you want live.
Do you know for sure that Peter is completely faithful? What if this affair helps keep Jane stay married to Peter? What if this affair helps Martin live his life? What if this is the only thing interesting that is happening in their life and this "illicit affair" keeps them going through the shit the life throws at them.
More importantly, I would ask that you meditate and find out why this bothers you. What is so abhorrent about this that affects you so much? Why are you friends with her? Have you ever been attracted to her?
The answer to your questions lie inside you - everyone, me included, are biased.
Live the life you want live.
4
First tell Jane you will not lie for her, or assist her in her deception. Second tell her if Peter should ask a direct question, you will tell him to ask her. Be clear you are not comfortable being a silent partner to her adultery. A real friend would not put you in, or use you in their deception. You have every right to refuse to be used this way. Second, you may want to distance yourself from Jane except professionally. Otherwise when the fertilizer hits the fan, (and it will,) you will get some on you.
Initially, I thought Jane was manipulating you, compromising you, by involving you in her affairs by making you an accomplice in her lies.
But then, what if she is in reality lost and looking for a moral compass in you? What you do, or not do, would in fact continue to guide her? If you do nothing, she concludes you approve and that she's doing the right thing? If you continue to actively corroborate her lies, she concludes Peter deserves it? Etc. etc.
In other words, don't think your inaction plays no part in how she comes to see herself, her husband, her marriage, her lover, and yes, even YOU. You assume that your inaction is neutral, that is, your inaction does not disturb what would have taken place if you were never a part of the equation. But your very presence already changed the equation, you ARE part of the equation, part of her worldview, part of her affair.
Don't be surprised that one day, she may come to despise YOU the most. You keep thinking about your moral obligation to Jane, to Peter, to Martin. Think about your moral obligation to yourself.
But then, what if she is in reality lost and looking for a moral compass in you? What you do, or not do, would in fact continue to guide her? If you do nothing, she concludes you approve and that she's doing the right thing? If you continue to actively corroborate her lies, she concludes Peter deserves it? Etc. etc.
In other words, don't think your inaction plays no part in how she comes to see herself, her husband, her marriage, her lover, and yes, even YOU. You assume that your inaction is neutral, that is, your inaction does not disturb what would have taken place if you were never a part of the equation. But your very presence already changed the equation, you ARE part of the equation, part of her worldview, part of her affair.
Don't be surprised that one day, she may come to despise YOU the most. You keep thinking about your moral obligation to Jane, to Peter, to Martin. Think about your moral obligation to yourself.
50
What an absurd load of analysis this is.
Yes, you should. It is unfair that you have to lie for your friend. If it goes against your ethics then I think deep inside you know what you should do.
Warn Jane of the craziness of this kind of affair and the many dangers of getting caught. Refuse to be involved in any way including lying about pictures received. This is a high stakes game and simply not worth it for anyone involved.
1
I would like to chime in with those who said, if your friend is putting you in an untenable situation, then she is no friend. You can articulate that you want to have nothing to do with the affair, lying about it, or pretending ignorance. You never want to be in a situation where you are lying on her behalf. So either she keeps you completely in the dark, or you break up... or she risks being exposed if/when your inner voice tells you enough is enough: you want your own integrity back.
1
This is on the extreme edge, but will write it anyway. So 2 people agree to murder someone and one defaults on the agreement. Then a third party(you) finds out. Now what? So how can I compare marriage vows to murder? I will let the reader figure that one out, it wont take very long.
There is no neat little box answer here. I think the bottom line is that if it works for them, who's to question? I've heard lots of situations over the years that I wouldn't find myself in, yet others do, and they either figure it out or suffer the consequences. This column is an interesting "scrouples" game question, but tedious and exhausting to dwell on in real life.
2
I am in my late 40s and that immediately puts me in the position of knowing lots of people in long term marriages that have at least one cheating member. I know of many cheaters at this point and I would never tell any of the parties involved b/c it is simply not my place to bring this issue to the surface of "their" marriage. If you don't know your partner is cheating, you don't want to know. Cheaters are usually obvious even if it's in subtle ways-you have to be tuned in to see it. Most people I know prefer the fantasy that their marriage is honest b/c the reality of divorce or knowing you're staying with someone who has betrayed you is too too much. And then there are those of us like myself who when faced with knowing they were with a lying spouse, left. It is strictly up to the people in the couple to figure that stuff out. NW should say nothing. Who cares if he's lying to Peter. If Peter wanted to know, his sensors would be turned on.
43
"If you don't know your partner is cheating, you don't want to know." Not true for me at least. I would definitely want to know.
If a friend was cheating another friend financially, saying "none of my business because the consequences might be messy (for me)" is cowardly.
If a friend was selling a house with a secret but serious defect to another friend, would you stay silent?
If a friend was cheating another friend financially, saying "none of my business because the consequences might be messy (for me)" is cowardly.
If a friend was selling a house with a secret but serious defect to another friend, would you stay silent?
Seriously don't you have your family to focus on rather than addressing/discussing others complications in a public forum. I cant believe that someone so indecisive over trivial matters are allowed to vote/raise children etc. God Save America!!
Maybe I've lived in France for a long time but the writer, answer, and the rest miss a possibility: that the husband knows and accepts that his wife has more than one man in her heart and her bed. There might, if the lies stop, be a place where this now dishonest ongoing affair can be turned into something better for the mental health of everybody involved.
It sounds like the author is convinced Jane loves Martin but it's possible that she also loves Peter, that she's genuinely polyamorous. It's also possible she's just a compulsive liar who is using her husband for support because she can't permanently have the man she loves. But the only way to find out -- the only person who knows for sure -- is Jane.
Lots of French are happily married and have lovers (I don't, but I'm not French; I just live here). Somehow they make it work; they really do love their spouses even though they sometimes also love, or at least have relations with, others. It's as much a part of their culture as baguettes and brie. For some Americans this might also work and, based on what the writer has described, this might be one of those cases. But the lying has to stop.
It sounds like the author is convinced Jane loves Martin but it's possible that she also loves Peter, that she's genuinely polyamorous. It's also possible she's just a compulsive liar who is using her husband for support because she can't permanently have the man she loves. But the only way to find out -- the only person who knows for sure -- is Jane.
Lots of French are happily married and have lovers (I don't, but I'm not French; I just live here). Somehow they make it work; they really do love their spouses even though they sometimes also love, or at least have relations with, others. It's as much a part of their culture as baguettes and brie. For some Americans this might also work and, based on what the writer has described, this might be one of those cases. But the lying has to stop.
4
Truth Always Prevails.
If you are a very good friend of Jane, help her understand that this would cause more hurt than pleasure for everybody involved. The time duration of this affair might be small but it could have lasting impact on Jane, Peter, Maritin and your life forever. If Jane feels Maritian is her true soul mate, ask her to go for him the right way.
If Martian is her soul mate, Cosmos would truly conspire to unite her with him.
If you are a very good friend of Jane, help her understand that this would cause more hurt than pleasure for everybody involved. The time duration of this affair might be small but it could have lasting impact on Jane, Peter, Maritin and your life forever. If Jane feels Maritian is her true soul mate, ask her to go for him the right way.
If Martian is her soul mate, Cosmos would truly conspire to unite her with him.
The bottom line as the author suggests is that life IS messy. And to his point, moral narcissism ( I like that equation) seems to be the culprit. But why do we single out a marriage/friendship dilemma? Why not abortion issues, economic policy, conservative vs open-minded issues and so on. Why do we think friendship is so important at all or that everyone should be on the "high" ground? This is a mess, and we can twist ourselves into a pretzel trying to answer the question, or we can approach it in a pragmatical way understanding that this is someone else's part-time, unethical, research experiment, tell the BFF to keep it to herself, and move on.
When Jesus was confronted with "the woman caught in adultery," he said to her, "I do not condemn thee." John 8:11. But most of the commenters here have no trouble at all condemning Jane. I say: Butt out! Jane's affair is not the business of "Name Withheld". He does not have to lie for her -- but other than that he should keep his mouth shut. (There's quite a good novel on this theme -- Saint Maybe by Anne Tyler -- about how an officious busybody ruins the lives of just about everyone by revealing "the truth". )
And the Ethicist writes, "Peter’s marriage may seem great to him, but there’s something seriously wrong with it." Oh? And the Ethicist knows that how? I know of several marriages where one partner or the other has had the occasional rendezvous with an old friend -- or a new one -- and the marriage really was fine. To quote Jesus again: "Judge not."
And the Ethicist writes, "Peter’s marriage may seem great to him, but there’s something seriously wrong with it." Oh? And the Ethicist knows that how? I know of several marriages where one partner or the other has had the occasional rendezvous with an old friend -- or a new one -- and the marriage really was fine. To quote Jesus again: "Judge not."
3
Since she was having this affair before her marriage, what makes you think the husband doesn't already know about it? Or that he would object if he did know? We're talking well-educated, well-traveled adults here, not teens or Bible Belt fanatics, and you'd be surprised how many people these days engage in open relationships or polyamory. Discretion is the better part of wisdom here.
1
If you were Peter, would you want to know? If 'yes', the aftermath is likely to be a complete mess, but it's not your mess. You're not likely to be friendly with Jane or Peter in the future, but you're not actually friends with either of them now. Jane has already ambushed you into being an accomplice to her infidelity (assuming the completeness and accuracy of your telling), and you're lying to Peter's face. Frankly, I don't see how you can say Peter "is also a friend" and not tell him. The only loyalty you have to Jane is affording her the opportunity to tell Peter before you do.
Frankly, it sounds like Jane wants you to tell Peter. How hard would it have been to just keep you in the dark about continuing to see Martin? It's entirely plausible that she's implicating you because, consciously or unconsciously, she wants to be found out.
You want to see someone you could plausibly not inform? Martin's wife. You presumably don't know Martin or his wife, and what happens with them might be none of your business. But you're eating dinner with Jane and Peter. Those relationships are what life is. "Life is messy", I agree. But what I take from that is that sometimes marriages fail, and that's what happens. Not everything turns out "okay", but that's life. It hurts sometimes. If you want to live it, then you'll want to know the truth. If you'd rather not know then you're trying to live a lie. It won't necessarily work, but maybe you'll get lucky and avoid reality until you die.
Frankly, it sounds like Jane wants you to tell Peter. How hard would it have been to just keep you in the dark about continuing to see Martin? It's entirely plausible that she's implicating you because, consciously or unconsciously, she wants to be found out.
You want to see someone you could plausibly not inform? Martin's wife. You presumably don't know Martin or his wife, and what happens with them might be none of your business. But you're eating dinner with Jane and Peter. Those relationships are what life is. "Life is messy", I agree. But what I take from that is that sometimes marriages fail, and that's what happens. Not everything turns out "okay", but that's life. It hurts sometimes. If you want to live it, then you'll want to know the truth. If you'd rather not know then you're trying to live a lie. It won't necessarily work, but maybe you'll get lucky and avoid reality until you die.
On issues concerning ethics and morality, there are no absolute truths - our actions should be based on our value systems. The author is clearly someone who is highly perceptive and intelligent and while it is perfectly fine to take opinions of others, it is not going to be of much use. It is like someone standing at a Baskin Robbins counter and asking everyone else what flavor he should choose.
In general, if you are not sure about what to do, then leave things be with other people's lives.
In general, if you are not sure about what to do, then leave things be with other people's lives.
1
Negative, Ghost Rider. Hit the E-brake and take a step back.
First and foremost: an affair is a betrayal - also known as a lie. I'm pretty open-minded to people's life choices, but I'm not so good when it comes to outright lying. If Peter and Jane were in an open marriage, then this would be a non-issue. The fact that they aren't, makes this an issue (for them). YOU, however, do actually have another choice (as many others have pointed out): tell her to stop involving you in her affair because it's unfair to you and it's unfair to Peter. She has selfishly pulled you in to help cover her --- A) without talking to you, and B) expecting you to do so.
At that: As far as this being good for her... Yeah, no. It doesn't work like that. She's not a single person any longer. She and Martin "love each other" enough to bang it out twice a year, but not give up a job for the other one? Please. They are two selfish creatures who can't let go of the past / are too selfish to sacrifice for one another. It's high time she stops acting the selfish cow and either cuts it off with Martin or comes clean with Peter.
You, my lucky friend, just need to tell her to shut it when it comes to opening her mouth to you about her affair, and if she can't, then pull the pin on a smoke grenade and go for the nearest exit.
First and foremost: an affair is a betrayal - also known as a lie. I'm pretty open-minded to people's life choices, but I'm not so good when it comes to outright lying. If Peter and Jane were in an open marriage, then this would be a non-issue. The fact that they aren't, makes this an issue (for them). YOU, however, do actually have another choice (as many others have pointed out): tell her to stop involving you in her affair because it's unfair to you and it's unfair to Peter. She has selfishly pulled you in to help cover her --- A) without talking to you, and B) expecting you to do so.
At that: As far as this being good for her... Yeah, no. It doesn't work like that. She's not a single person any longer. She and Martin "love each other" enough to bang it out twice a year, but not give up a job for the other one? Please. They are two selfish creatures who can't let go of the past / are too selfish to sacrifice for one another. It's high time she stops acting the selfish cow and either cuts it off with Martin or comes clean with Peter.
You, my lucky friend, just need to tell her to shut it when it comes to opening her mouth to you about her affair, and if she can't, then pull the pin on a smoke grenade and go for the nearest exit.
If this is really a good marriage, then why does Jane feel the need to cheat on Peter? How is allowing this to go on perpetually anywhere near good?
1
The letter writer could also write a letter to The Times to unburden himself. But it would be interesting to know more about the marriage. It seems there were no children involved, because if there were, silence would be the only choice. But what if the childless friend announced that he and his wife were planning to adopt, or try IVF? Or maybe were just about to drop their life savings on a house? With more on the line and other lives involved, does the equation change?
Right from the start "Jane" and "Peter" have a "good"marriage?!?!
Deception from day one is hardly the foundation of a "good' marriage or relationship of any kind.
Explain to Jane how she has betrayed your friendship with her and for your well being move on NW.
Extricate yourself from these people.
Jane is not a real friend to have put you in such a compromised situation.
Jane sounds very selfish.
Deception from day one is hardly the foundation of a "good' marriage or relationship of any kind.
Explain to Jane how she has betrayed your friendship with her and for your well being move on NW.
Extricate yourself from these people.
Jane is not a real friend to have put you in such a compromised situation.
Jane sounds very selfish.
I think I may have solved this one.
They should all move to France.
They should all move to France.
1
Be sure to Thank Jane for making you part of her problem
That's what friends are for
That's what friends are for
1
Oh, calm down, everyone. This is none of our business. It is only the writer's business if he makes it so (though Jane ain't helping with her SFO story). Tell her to stop that, and then get out of the picture.
As he (and the response, and a couple of commenters) say, this may well be the best outcome for all involved. The prudish, religion-based rejection of adultery in all circumstances does not always lead to the best outcomes. It is based on a moral code, and not on actual morality.
As he (and the response, and a couple of commenters) say, this may well be the best outcome for all involved. The prudish, religion-based rejection of adultery in all circumstances does not always lead to the best outcomes. It is based on a moral code, and not on actual morality.
2
There are actually a ton of things you could do: post flyers around the neighborhood with Jane's phone number on it with a caption like "call me for a good time"; You could send her flowers to her home when you know hubby will be there, with an anonymous card saying "thanks for a good time hottie"
Sounds horrible. If I were Peter I'd want to know the truth so I have a chance to get on with my life while I'm still young enough to enjoy it. Let Peter decide if he's ok with his wife cheating, NOT YOU! Otherwise he will still most likely find out eventually. What's worse, finding out your wife has been cheating on you for a year or two or finding out later that your wife has been cheating on you for 20 years? Both are horrible, but the longer this goes on the worse it's going to be for him mentally and socially (re-entering the dating scene at 28 vs. 48). Tell him now, either anonymously or grow a pair tell him yourself.
1
Michael (posting 6 hours ago) is correct. Jane "crossed the line" when she dragged you into her deceit by eliciting a lie from you to help her cover up. Suddenly "having" to lie to cover up for a friend is one thing, but a friend should never ask you to lie to another friend (white lies excepted). I would tell Jane not to do that again.
My usual silence in these matters is because I assume the "innocent" spouse knows, at least at some level, and it is not my role to "out" their tolerance of a spouse's affair. Many people arrange their lives differently, and it is not my business to disrupt relationships that are largely good and healthy by injecting a prurient moralism.
My usual silence in these matters is because I assume the "innocent" spouse knows, at least at some level, and it is not my role to "out" their tolerance of a spouse's affair. Many people arrange their lives differently, and it is not my business to disrupt relationships that are largely good and healthy by injecting a prurient moralism.
2
I wonder if many commentators here that advocate silence or proclaim to the writer that "it's none of your business" would sing the same tune if the cheater were a heterosexual married man. I think we still have a double standard in American culture when it comes to extra-marital affairs. When a married man cheats he is a monster, a lusty savage whose base desires must be restrained. When a married woman cheats, of course, her needs weren't being met, and she must be supported in her courageous carnality. I'm a fan of sex columnist Dan Savage in that monogamy is incompatible with most people's reality. But until our laws become so enlightened, especially around no-fault divorce and alimony compensation, let's be consistent. Cheating when married is wrong--regardless of what kind of genitals are in the cheaters pants.
I can't imagine a situation where the right thing to do is to blow up somebody else's marriage, which telling Peter about the affair would most likely do. It would inflict hurt on everyone involved, and the only possible benefit is to clear your own conscience. It's up to Jane, Peter, and Martin as individuals to live their lives as they see fit, and it's not your responsibility or your place to intervene. However, I agree 100% with those who say you should put Jane on notice that she must never make you an accomplice again in even the slightest way.
4
You shouldnt say a thing. If you do you are going to ruin two friends lives. Jane only see's this man once or twice a year. Telling Peter about it would only be honest but it would also bring him the pain of his life. Just let it be. Live your live and let them live theirs the way it is.
3
To me it is simple. You do not betray Jane, but you tell her to come clean, that you will NOT cover for her again if she tries to make you an accomplice in her lie.
1
Marriage is sanctioned by the state; as such it entails a commitment to society. If for instance, this was a business partnership, and one party was embezzling money, the questioner would arguably have a responsibility to report to the police and not to just the other party. Although in marriage commitments to society have come to be seen as secondary or even nugatory, I am surprised to find that ethicists response didn't discuss them at all. If the questioner does in fact have no duty to his society to call out this deception, then perhaps marriage shouldn't be sanctioned by the state in the first place.
15
This is a quaint perspective that my great-grandparents could relate to. It has nothing to do with modern society.
Adultery is no longer against the law in most states, it no longer results in public flogging, stoning, or any other punishment of the kind. "Calling out" adulterers does not result in newspaper stories or lists at the post office. It is, in some ways, sometimes, its own punishment, or comes to be. But if you want a place where everyone's bed habits and sex acts are the state's business, there are countries that could accommodate you, such as Saudi Arabia (although they mostly punish female "offenders", I hear). But here, you might keep your prying out of other people's affairs.
Seriously? That is not a germane comparison. Embezzlement is against the law; cheating is not. Considering how many people do cheat, you're going to have a hard time getting society to "sanction" the act of calling cheaters out.
Some women want it all, and get it. Some men too. Life goes on.
Please please consider being more concise. Both in question and answer. Editing is part of the job of a writer.
3
At least you practice what you preach.
1
It's simple. If you agree with Jane's adulterous values (for her), then be her co-conspirator. If you don't, then blow her cover or disappear. This is about your values, not Jane's, Martin's, Peter's, or society's. Figure out who you are and act accordingly.
1
Maybe some "do unto others as you'd have them do to you" would be good. albeit it old-fashioned, advice, to Letter Writer. If LW were Peter what would he want from his friend? LW seems to pride himself on being "quirky intellectuals" with his friend Jane. It seems that this implies having no moral judgments about her behavior. He only objects to this arrangement, which has been going on for a long time, when he is made uncomfortable by having to lie about the San Francisco photos. This strikes me as somewhat selfish. Does he really care about the well being of either Jane or Peter, or is this friendship based on something much less? If LW has any twinge of guilt about actually contributing to something that might be genuinely harming Peter, then he should level with Jane and tell her exactly how he feels. Whatever her reaction is to LW's complete honesty will determine whether he should remain friends with her. It might wake her up and she might make some changes or she may turn on LW and drop him as a friend. Maybe just being a quirky intellectual isn't a good enough basis for friendship anyway.
The self-declared ethicist asked whether it was acceptable to lie to help one friend deceive another.
The answer? Forget about honesty, decide which friend is more important, and say whatever helps the important friend. Throw the other friend under the bus.
The "ethicist" is nothing of the sort. I certainly hope I have purged such people from my acquaintance.
The answer? Forget about honesty, decide which friend is more important, and say whatever helps the important friend. Throw the other friend under the bus.
The "ethicist" is nothing of the sort. I certainly hope I have purged such people from my acquaintance.
4
The "ethicist"writes as an apologia for NW keeping silent by showing fealty to Jane:
"But telling Peter about what she’s been doing would be the betrayal of another relationship, yours with Jane. It’s a bond of longer standing and of greater closeness."
This twisted logic makes one question the qualifications of Mr Appiah to opine on anything to do with ethics. What kind of "closeness" could NW possibly have with Jane knowing she is a liar and a serial cheater and a person who has no qualms about drawing NW into her dishonest schemes.
It is Jane who has betrayed the "relationship" with NW and it's high time both he and Peter rid themselves of the narcissistic sociopath that she is.
"
"But telling Peter about what she’s been doing would be the betrayal of another relationship, yours with Jane. It’s a bond of longer standing and of greater closeness."
This twisted logic makes one question the qualifications of Mr Appiah to opine on anything to do with ethics. What kind of "closeness" could NW possibly have with Jane knowing she is a liar and a serial cheater and a person who has no qualms about drawing NW into her dishonest schemes.
It is Jane who has betrayed the "relationship" with NW and it's high time both he and Peter rid themselves of the narcissistic sociopath that she is.
"
Most of the commentators below show more ethical awareness than the Ethicist. Not only ethical clarity but logic and emotional control.
3
It's all about power. Jane seems to have more of it than the other "players" in this power game - or at least she's acting as she she does. As such, she may feel she can afford to abuse that power. Poor Peter, and poor "friend". You, friend, are allowing yourself to be a pawn in this power game. It's up to you to take a stand - either play the game, or stop. This is an ethics column; you know the right answer from an ethical standpoint.
1
In the "olden" days, some reader would comment that Jane's adultery is what the Bible calls "sin" which is displeasing to God, as well as a betrayal to her husband. If Peter had compassion for the woman's soul, at the same time he informs her to leave him out of the spider's web that she is weaving, he might also advise her to seek out spiritual counsel from a qualified pastor. He could also pray for Jane, her husband, and Martin. As a people, many of us have our backs on God, and we 'pay for it' in a multitude of ways. Is the new morality quite possibly nothing but the old immorality?
It's complicated and yet simple.
I have known several such marriages and becoming a socially moral school marm about it is never any help. Admittedly, if Peter finds out, it will be painful... the realization that his wife had other needs he could not fulfill. It's often something very ephemeral and deep, and hard to understand. Jane should, perhaps, change some of the clauses of their jointly signed contract and give Peter some leeway as well.
Becoming all hissy at the "adulterer" is unhelpful and silly. As a friend to Jane, the author might want to simply elicit what exactly Jane is missing, and if it can be introduced into her marriage, or not. Also, what is it exactly that she is seeking with her Martin... What is her "adult life"? Maybe Martin simply represents some of that more easy-going life of the past? And she needs that... Don't we all?
We all have roles to play in our lives, and the more we can in our relationships, the more fulfilling. The author's dilemma is tough. I was once in that position (in the others as well, by the way). In an email correspondence, I figured out that my female friend was having an affair, exactly as Jane was. I understood where she was coming from, her husband, a brooding intellectual type, was simply not that fun (sexually as well), and he was still terribly attached to his mom's apron strings. But she was suffering from the secrecy, and in the end I did encourage her to open up to him and end the marriage, which was stifling her.
I have known several such marriages and becoming a socially moral school marm about it is never any help. Admittedly, if Peter finds out, it will be painful... the realization that his wife had other needs he could not fulfill. It's often something very ephemeral and deep, and hard to understand. Jane should, perhaps, change some of the clauses of their jointly signed contract and give Peter some leeway as well.
Becoming all hissy at the "adulterer" is unhelpful and silly. As a friend to Jane, the author might want to simply elicit what exactly Jane is missing, and if it can be introduced into her marriage, or not. Also, what is it exactly that she is seeking with her Martin... What is her "adult life"? Maybe Martin simply represents some of that more easy-going life of the past? And she needs that... Don't we all?
We all have roles to play in our lives, and the more we can in our relationships, the more fulfilling. The author's dilemma is tough. I was once in that position (in the others as well, by the way). In an email correspondence, I figured out that my female friend was having an affair, exactly as Jane was. I understood where she was coming from, her husband, a brooding intellectual type, was simply not that fun (sexually as well), and he was still terribly attached to his mom's apron strings. But she was suffering from the secrecy, and in the end I did encourage her to open up to him and end the marriage, which was stifling her.
18
I think I would want my friend to tell me the truth that my wife is cheating.If he doesn't it will be worse in the long run.He should have the chance of having a trusting,loving relationship for his life.Those that aren't married make that choice,he should have that choice too.
Smacks of blaming the victim, which in this case is Peter.
Your needs really aren't being met? Get a divorce. Don't cheat through two marriages!
Your needs really aren't being met? Get a divorce. Don't cheat through two marriages!
Fred, you may be friends with more adulturers than you know.
3
I would love to know the advice if you reversed the gender of everyone involved. I'll bet the advice would be different if it were a evil man having an affair.
1
The letter writer will continue this friendship with Jane until she screws him over personally. It's only a matter of opportunity before she does. (Although letter writer feels as though their "intellectual" friendship is beyond betrayal.). Unlike her poor husband, the letter writer has been warned repeatedly about Jane's moral failings. So, in a way, letter writer deserves whatever Jane will dish out.
You need to read the October 27 article: "Bachelor Glut In China Leads To a Proposal: Share Wives"
Maybe this couple is being like the Chinese. The poor share wives. The rich can afford dalliances with paid "companions". The poor have to share. Welcome to the hellish reality of Capitalism.
You know, if you get enough "Wives to share", you can avoid being called a "pimp".
Maybe this couple is being like the Chinese. The poor share wives. The rich can afford dalliances with paid "companions". The poor have to share. Welcome to the hellish reality of Capitalism.
You know, if you get enough "Wives to share", you can avoid being called a "pimp".
Wow. Talk about off point. You should reconsider "deregulate this" and perhaps adopt "Johnny one-note."
Please remember that Jane has cheated on *two* husbands with this man. You may consider her a worthy friend, but she obviously doesn't consider the two men she married over the course of her life to be worthy of either faithfulness or truth. There's no easy answer here, so my advice would be to ask yourself what you would do if someone told you that you were being lied to by one whom you loved. Would you prefer to go on in ignorance or would you prefer to know the truth? I was in that place, you see; I chose truth, and while I was desperately unhappy over what I learned and the divorce that followed, I'm glad now that I did it. At least I can sleep at night. So tell me... you, who aid in lies to your friend's husband and her cheating lover's wife and to whatever families they might have... how do *you* sleep?
3
I agree that Jane shouldn't have asked him to lie for her, and he should distance himself. I might also suggest that she and her actual husband spend a weekend in a hotel once or twice a year, and see if that will let her enjoy to novelty and split from her paramour who doesn't want to pay the cost of marrying hr.
2
How is the writer (NW) so sure that Peter is NOT aware of the affair?
Perhaps Peter and Jane have an agreement that, because they have different libidos, she can seek outside affairs. Maybe Peter is having an affair. Maybe Peter allows Jane to have affairs, but doesn't want to know about them, let alone have a so called friend tell him about them. Maybe Peter likes it when Jane comes home and describes her affair.
No one except Peter and Jane know for sure. Perhaps they really do have a "good marriage", but not because they have a 19th century approved strictly monogamous marriage.
To me there is something creepy about the writer's intimate knowledge of Peter's and Jane's marriage. Furthermore, I can't tell if the writer is uncomfortable about being complicit in a lie (in his long epistle he doesn't seek advice about it).
If not, then there really isn't a problem.
He should just keep his mouth shut and if he can't do that or he feels deeply morally compromised with his friendship(s) he should break off the friendship(s).
Perhaps Peter and Jane have an agreement that, because they have different libidos, she can seek outside affairs. Maybe Peter is having an affair. Maybe Peter allows Jane to have affairs, but doesn't want to know about them, let alone have a so called friend tell him about them. Maybe Peter likes it when Jane comes home and describes her affair.
No one except Peter and Jane know for sure. Perhaps they really do have a "good marriage", but not because they have a 19th century approved strictly monogamous marriage.
To me there is something creepy about the writer's intimate knowledge of Peter's and Jane's marriage. Furthermore, I can't tell if the writer is uncomfortable about being complicit in a lie (in his long epistle he doesn't seek advice about it).
If not, then there really isn't a problem.
He should just keep his mouth shut and if he can't do that or he feels deeply morally compromised with his friendship(s) he should break off the friendship(s).
3
Well, if they were French, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
5
i was in a very similar situation once upon a time and the outcome was based solely on my own experience of having been recently cheated on (with friends that new about it!) I had a 'moral narcissist' in my ear as well so that pushed me to tell the truth. I had become good friends with a couple but was clearly better friends with one half- tom, we'll call him. Well, sue, the other half assumed that since we were both a couple of gals that she could confide all her trash to me that she had an affair with another friend of ours. I said, 'hell, no.' i told her, 'you have 48 hours to tell tom the truth.' And thats exactly what happened. She threatened me but i told him what was happening. They broke up for maybe a month and then got back together. I lost my friend tom for a while until she finally got caught again and now, after 3 years of not talking, we are friends again. My advise: stay out of it and I mean stay away from the cheater too. Just don't be a part of drama.
4
On the last question, you should continue to lie to "Peter", since you are doing it already. One more lie will not change much.
You chose your side a long time ago.
BTW, what sexual interest do you have in "Jane"?
Finally, I think the whole story is invented for the purpose of this article. I do not believe any sane and civilized adult man as described in this story would have a dilemma that he would want to share with the readers of the NYT. That part is completely unreal.
You chose your side a long time ago.
BTW, what sexual interest do you have in "Jane"?
Finally, I think the whole story is invented for the purpose of this article. I do not believe any sane and civilized adult man as described in this story would have a dilemma that he would want to share with the readers of the NYT. That part is completely unreal.
1
You seem more uncomfortable being in the middle of the two than you do with the actual affair. So in addition to saying you don't want to be embroiled in any coverup lies for Jane, tell her that you don't think having an affair is a good idea (which you seem to feel) and you don't want to know anything at all about her and Martin going forward; she'll have to find another confidante. Then assuming she honors your wishes, forget about it.
If you can't forget about it, or she insists on roping you in, distance yourself from them.
I think it's their business to work out or not, not yours. And if you intuitively feel you shouldn't tattle and that the affair is not so bad for everyone, maybe you're right.
As for feeling bad about how Peter would see you if you don't tell him and he someday finds out, you'll have to live with that possibility, or extricate yourself from your friendship with them. That's life.
If you can't forget about it, or she insists on roping you in, distance yourself from them.
I think it's their business to work out or not, not yours. And if you intuitively feel you shouldn't tattle and that the affair is not so bad for everyone, maybe you're right.
As for feeling bad about how Peter would see you if you don't tell him and he someday finds out, you'll have to live with that possibility, or extricate yourself from your friendship with them. That's life.
She confided in NW. NW needs to keep his mouth shut, period. As to Jane and Peter it is their business, period.
1
This happened in our social circle. Under the influence of alcohol, a friend confessed an affair to another friend, who then insisted that the first friend tell her husband, and set a time limit of seven days, no less, for the confession to occur, or she would tell the husband herself. Three days prior to the deadline she called to re-apply the pressure. Our friend confessed her affair, then told her husband about what was effectively blackmail. The upshot? The couple are still together, five years later; the friend who applied the high-pressure coercion is no longer a friend, and no longer a member of our social group. I believe that the parting comment they made to her was, "in the future, don't project your bourgeois morality onto other people's relationships".
2
That scenario does not surprise me at all. I would hope that my husband and I could handle the situation the same way if a third-party behaved like that toward one of us. Even if I discovered that my husband had cheated, I would not throw him away like garbage. I would definitely torture him for a while, but then I would work hard to try everything possible to strengthen my marriage. But, as for a friend who would use such tactics? He or she would be out of my life immediately.
1
What is so often missing from these "ethicist" pages is an opinion from a psychiatrist or psychologist. In this case, such professionals could bring experience and expertise re the ways in which people deflect anger onto one or more parties other than the actual perpetrator of pain. Your story here is not one that reinforces any particular option for the letter writer. Instead, it describes the common strategy that couples use in order to do the least work possible to repair damage done by irresponsible behavior.
Nonsense, TG. The "work" done by the spouses to repair their marriage is good and plenty, if they succeed. Your sniffing at them for minding the intrusions of a busybody is out of line. They have the right to their own perceptions, and far more knowledge of the particulars than you have.
First, in reading the answer from the ethicist, I lost track of the zigging and zagging and was certain I must be reading an economic forecast where no matter what happens the author can't be wrong. As for my opinion, ethical or not, I think it is very wise to keep out of it. This is rather like having inside information, the best course is to put it out of your mind. There is a lot to be said for being blissfully ignorant and at the end of the day, the wife may be the one suffering with some guilt while the husband may be quite happy.
1
There is something here that wasn't discussed, and I believe should have been. The author of the letter tells us that Jane cheated on her first husband with the same man she is now cheating on Peter with, and now Author is seemingly being forced to play a role in this deception. What I get from this is that because Author knew long ago about Jane's affair, perhaps she assumes that he's okay with it, and his response about receiving pics from her confirmed to her his willingness to help Jane lie to Peter. I believe Author is involved in a toxic friendship that will ultimately benefit no one, and his stress over the situation will only grow as Jane demands more lies from him to play along. Author should take a step back from both Jane and Peter and let this naturally play out between them, then he doesn't have to worry about his role in it. Delaying this won't help anyone be the better person.
4
I can't imagine anyone wanting to be friends with either Jane or Martin. Toxic, indeed!
Dear Abby,
I have a good friend, who I will call "Jane" that I've known for many years. A few years ago, Jane met a man I'll call "Peter", whom she married after having been divorced from her first husband.
I've come to know Peter - who is a pretty good guy; however my friendship with Jane is stronger.
The problem is that, for many years, Jane has been
having an affair with a married man named "Martin", who lives abroad. Jane has confided in me regarding her affair, which goes back to when she was still married to her first husband. Jane has told me that Martin is probably the love of her life, but they will never be able to fulfill their desires to be together.
Peter knows nothing about the affair; and I'm sure he would be terribly hurt and divorce Jane in a second if he were to find out. Sometimes I see Jane and Peter together, and have to play along with Jane's lies about her times away from home, while on her secret trysts with Martin.
I'm caught between a rock and a hard place, as I value my long friendship with Jane, and yet hate having to lie to Peter's face; and sometimes I feel like telling Peter about the affair. What should I do.
Signed,
Conflicted in Connecticut
Dear Conflicted,
Keep your mouth shut! - Your spilling the beans to Peter will do nothing except cause him great pain and destroy his marriage. - Both he and Jane will end up hating you and your friendship with Jane will be ruined. Mind your own business.
There - I fixed it for you...
I have a good friend, who I will call "Jane" that I've known for many years. A few years ago, Jane met a man I'll call "Peter", whom she married after having been divorced from her first husband.
I've come to know Peter - who is a pretty good guy; however my friendship with Jane is stronger.
The problem is that, for many years, Jane has been
having an affair with a married man named "Martin", who lives abroad. Jane has confided in me regarding her affair, which goes back to when she was still married to her first husband. Jane has told me that Martin is probably the love of her life, but they will never be able to fulfill their desires to be together.
Peter knows nothing about the affair; and I'm sure he would be terribly hurt and divorce Jane in a second if he were to find out. Sometimes I see Jane and Peter together, and have to play along with Jane's lies about her times away from home, while on her secret trysts with Martin.
I'm caught between a rock and a hard place, as I value my long friendship with Jane, and yet hate having to lie to Peter's face; and sometimes I feel like telling Peter about the affair. What should I do.
Signed,
Conflicted in Connecticut
Dear Conflicted,
Keep your mouth shut! - Your spilling the beans to Peter will do nothing except cause him great pain and destroy his marriage. - Both he and Jane will end up hating you and your friendship with Jane will be ruined. Mind your own business.
There - I fixed it for you...
2
I would simply tell my friend, "DO NOT include me in any more of your lies. DO NOT ask me to cover for you. Asking me to do so will result in two things: the end of our friendship & me spilling the beans to hubby."
A real friend does not ask you to lie. If she is unhappy in her marriage, that's on her & she should deal with it. She is one selfish piece of work & including you in it is making you a chump. Is her friendship worth being a chump for??
A real friend does not ask you to lie. If she is unhappy in her marriage, that's on her & she should deal with it. She is one selfish piece of work & including you in it is making you a chump. Is her friendship worth being a chump for??
3
This couple's marriage is between themselves and no one else. People outside of it have no business judging it or inserting themselves into it. Married people have all sorts of understandings, arrangements, needs, and eccentricities that outsiders cannot begin to understand.
That having been said, Jane crossed a line when she put the letter writer on the spot and implicated him in her dishonesty.
If I were the letter writer, I would have a candid conversation with Jane telling her how uncomfortable this made me and asking for her commitment to never again involve me even indirectly in any duplicity. I would also make clear that I wanted her to stop confiding in me about matters that she would not share with her husband. Her response would determine whether or not I could continue to be friendly with her, and, by extension, her husband.
That having been said, Jane crossed a line when she put the letter writer on the spot and implicated him in her dishonesty.
If I were the letter writer, I would have a candid conversation with Jane telling her how uncomfortable this made me and asking for her commitment to never again involve me even indirectly in any duplicity. I would also make clear that I wanted her to stop confiding in me about matters that she would not share with her husband. Her response would determine whether or not I could continue to be friendly with her, and, by extension, her husband.
2
Here's what's going to happen, which will throw off all the gaming prognostications of the Ethicist: Peter will read this column, immediately obviating the question of whether his friend should disclose what he knows.
2
A central point of this little tale is that Jane has felt it necessary to conscript her friend (the writer of the letter) as a kind of ally in her long-running, extramarital affair. She wants a witness to her infidelity, a spectator, an "approver," a co-liar, if you will. People engaged for years in this sort of behavior often need a silent co-conspirator. It bolsters their bravado. It helps justify what they're doing ("My friend understands my deep need for this person outside my marriage.") It adds to the thrill of the plot. Society doesn't have rules for the complainant's role. No ethics need apply. If he likes the role he's been given, so be it. Live with the discomfort. If not, tell Jane he wants out. He doesn't want to know whether Jane lied to Peter about San Francisco, or not. In the final analysis, nobody really can know the inner dynamics of another's marriage. Perhaps those involved in the marriage don't know, either. Maybe the current arrangement is in everybody's best interest - even Peter's. After all, maybe Peter is secretly happy Jane has a not-so-secret lover because he has one himself.
1
The (in this case man - N.W.) doth protest too much, methinks … I’m trying not to take the moral high ground - but I’m going to in this case. This seems to me to be grade school Ethics 101. How many words does it take for N.W. to excuse his behavior in this web? “quirky intellectuals” - sounds like he and Jane have already been in bed or at least fantasized it. Both Jane and he will be outed eventually – truth always prevails. My bet is that N.W.‘s take on Peter and Jane’s marriage is also wrong - he (Peter) probably already knows his marriage is down the tubes. If not he will sooner rather than later. Jane needs a therapist. N.W. should salvage a bit of his integrity and tell Jane that he is going to come clean with Peter (his friend). He’d be doing all involved a favor. N.W. might come out of it with one friend – possibly even two. Jane can decide whether she wants to be present at the reckoning. Sorry – I don’t mean to come across as Hester Prynne’s neighbor. I thought I was a moral relativist. Those nuns must have had an effect on me after all.
1
Long ago I was working late on a Friday night. My boss, who was my old college friend, came to my office to tell me his wife had just answered his phone call and she said she had been out at the movies with me. I never spoke to her again. Adultery hurts. You just don't abet an adulterer.
5
Especially a stupid one! Just kidding, except for the "stupid one" part. What was this woman thinking, choosing her wronged husband's employee as her alibi?
Plenty of fractured marriages look healthy from the outside. Don't assume you are doing anyone (including Jane) a favor by supporting her charade. Her affair with Martin prevents her from contributing fully to her real relationship. If Peter leaves her when he finds out, perhaps she can start anew eventually and finally learn what it means to truly commit to someone.
1
By the same token, some marriages that are not 100% monogamous all the time may look questionable two others from the outside but maybe meeting the needs of the partners on the inside.
I was close friends with a single woman in a decades-long relationship with a married man. His wife and eventually grown child knew about my friend and the affair. They weren't happy about it, had even come to a few blows over it (!), but were trapped in the situation.
I had no relationship with the man or his family. But I chafed at my friend's characterization of the man's wife as a stereotype that put the cheating man in a positive, long-suffering light.
I told my friend to stop speaking poorly of the wife. Although I knew nothing of the couple's marriage, I was uncomfortable hearing about the affair and of the wife being disrespected (to me, a stranger, no less).
But my friend wouldn't stop speaking of the wife in a manner I found degrading and misogynistic, and it was the last straw for my own sense of decency. I reluctantly cut our friendship off. My friend rationalized my act as a reflection of my judgmentalism, prudishness, and close-mindedness.
Seems like if you live long enough you're bound to run into one of these types of situations and be forced to face yourself over it.
I had no relationship with the man or his family. But I chafed at my friend's characterization of the man's wife as a stereotype that put the cheating man in a positive, long-suffering light.
I told my friend to stop speaking poorly of the wife. Although I knew nothing of the couple's marriage, I was uncomfortable hearing about the affair and of the wife being disrespected (to me, a stranger, no less).
But my friend wouldn't stop speaking of the wife in a manner I found degrading and misogynistic, and it was the last straw for my own sense of decency. I reluctantly cut our friendship off. My friend rationalized my act as a reflection of my judgmentalism, prudishness, and close-mindedness.
Seems like if you live long enough you're bound to run into one of these types of situations and be forced to face yourself over it.
3
What's the point of an ethics advisor who won't take a stand? You're not responsible for anyone's life choices but your own. You can't be an ethical person and stay friends with these people. You are an accessory to adultery. Adultery is no longer a crime, but if it were, you could reasonably be prosecuted, in my view. It doesn't matter if it doesn't help. It's about YOU. And it might actually help: your disappearance might well get both parties thinking. In sum: be a man, and run as fast as you can from this situation.
1
You assume Peter knows nothing, and I strongly suspect he knows things are not right. I doubt he knows everything, but I'm sure he suspects something is going on. I'd tell Jane you refuse to mask her indiscretions anymore, and tell her about how difficult it was to lie to Peter about her trip. Let her know there is a limit to your friendship, and if Peter ever confronts you on this issue, be honest with him. I'd also distance myself from these people.
2
Move on, get some better "friends."
1
Ask yourself just one basic primal psychological question in this quagmire, where *no* one is being honest. It's really all very simple. Who is holding all of the power in this group of so called adults? Once that is established, and I sincerely question if these are developmentally mature adults ( they are not ) you can back off and then find some other so called 'friends' as these are not them nor ever have been. Tell Ms. Jane that you no longer want to be part of this charade and juvenile deception and urge her to talk and speak openly with her husband. Also expect her to lie profusely as control is her potion. Good luck and more onward and upward. Hard for me to believe that this story is actually a real one vs. a tabloid fabrication, however so be it. Time for everyone in this group to grow up before your their own children beat them to it.
2
I think it is strange that Jane cannot forego a 2-4 days a year in a hotel with another guy to protect her marriage. I think that means her marriage is probably doomed anyway. Part of being successfully married is recognizing and avoiding situations that have the potential to do damage to it.
I think it is almost as strange that the letter writer feels so attached to Jane. She's a liar, she forced the LW to lie. It's clear she's not a nice person. Why would you want to put any effort into maintaining that friendship? There must be some unstated reason.
I think it is almost as strange that the letter writer feels so attached to Jane. She's a liar, she forced the LW to lie. It's clear she's not a nice person. Why would you want to put any effort into maintaining that friendship? There must be some unstated reason.
2
That this is the best "ethics" that NYU and the NY Times can supply makes me very sad. The banal moral relativism of the "professor" reminds me why I left academic philosophy. The only redemption comes from the much more morally compelling responses in the comments.
2
Well Gee what you should not do and should not have done is lie to assist a cheater. Otherwise stay out of personal relationships that are not really your business. Tell your friend to never again use you in this way.
3
Jane is a despicable person for making you part of her lie. She wants to lie to somebody she pledged exclusivity to, that's her business...and her husband's. But bringing you into the lie to validate the lie - that's rotten.
2
Jane isn't a good spouse, even remotely, I doubt consequently she's worthy of being a friend.
2
You did not seriously just tell this man that it's OK that she's cheating because the breakup would be worse even though she's pulled her friend into the lie. Tell the husband she's cheating and break off contact with this horrible woman. It is not worth compromising yourself for her.
4
Here's a solution to benefit all: don't be a scumbag & make the world a better place.
She did you dirty. Really. I mean, life is complicated. True love (I postulate) sometimes requires the hurt of others. I'd have it another way, but it can't always be. I learned that coming out of the closet. Sometimes life puts us in situations where we end up doing things we never thought we would. So who are we to judge? It's 1 thing to have an affair & confide in a friend (few things disgust me more than a friend who can not bear the burden of another’s “sensitive truth”; I do not say this easily), but she did more. She decided for you that she was going to USE your witness & the assumption of her husband that you aren't a scumbag, to conceal her deceit. If she can do that to you & also lie down at night in her husbands faces, pretending to feel & BE something she's not, just to make her life easier at their vulnerable expense, what chance do you have when its your turn?? What is a friend to you? More disturbing, the crux of this issue seems to be $. So rather than JUST being concerned about how well this all fares for Jane, who really doesn't seem to be spending too much time caring about anyone else... Throw your own private revolution against this soulless, hypermaterialistic system & a ppl who casually forsake "soul mates" bc they love $$$ better, all while not batting an eyelash over who they had to use while cheating to have it all?
Tell him.
She's not your friend… he might be.
She did you dirty. Really. I mean, life is complicated. True love (I postulate) sometimes requires the hurt of others. I'd have it another way, but it can't always be. I learned that coming out of the closet. Sometimes life puts us in situations where we end up doing things we never thought we would. So who are we to judge? It's 1 thing to have an affair & confide in a friend (few things disgust me more than a friend who can not bear the burden of another’s “sensitive truth”; I do not say this easily), but she did more. She decided for you that she was going to USE your witness & the assumption of her husband that you aren't a scumbag, to conceal her deceit. If she can do that to you & also lie down at night in her husbands faces, pretending to feel & BE something she's not, just to make her life easier at their vulnerable expense, what chance do you have when its your turn?? What is a friend to you? More disturbing, the crux of this issue seems to be $. So rather than JUST being concerned about how well this all fares for Jane, who really doesn't seem to be spending too much time caring about anyone else... Throw your own private revolution against this soulless, hypermaterialistic system & a ppl who casually forsake "soul mates" bc they love $$$ better, all while not batting an eyelash over who they had to use while cheating to have it all?
Tell him.
She's not your friend… he might be.
3
I'm saddened to see this drivel available on the front page of my subscription to the international New York Times online. Please find a more appropriate slot for this as well as the regular (and rather dull) posts on how psychotherapy has saved some of your contributors.
2
What needs to be said here is that all the players are moral relativists and are hence doomed to failure because there is no absolute north in their world.
1
Ah, but failure is relative.
1
Appiah's answer proves Marco Rubio is right when he says "we need more welders and less philosophers." Any welder would advise NW to tell Jane to stop expecting him to lie for her.
The answer is terribly simple. You need money, you need a favor, anything you need, Jane will provide it. Because you can blackmail her anytime you like. You didn't ask to be put in this position. She put you there against your will. All other choices are lose/lose. This one is you win, she loses. It may not be ethical, but neither is she and she brought it up.
I believe morally you cannot be friends with Peter and Jane and keep this lie between them. Either exit from the friendship with both of them or come clean with Peter and Jane. By acting as a friend to Peter you cannot lie to him, if you had never met Peter or bonded with him I don't believe you would have the same obligation. As for Jane, it is a shame that moral character is not part of being a quirky intellectual.
2
Marriage is about more than sex. It is a business arrangement as well. Hopefully it is a friendship arrangement as well. I can't imagine betraying Jane. There are things to keep to oneself and there are things to talk about. Appiah's recommendation is long winded but right on. We know that 8% of births are not fathered by the reported father. We are humans and we spread our seeds as far as we can. And we need population control.
No you shouldn't tell. It's not yours to tell. You might be right about Jane. Maybe her affair is saving her mariage.
I have a friend who is in the exact same situation. She is so bored with her husband but has affection for him and sees her lover 2 or 3 times per year.
Stay away or do not let Jane confined in you about her affair. You can share many other subjects with Jane but not her affair. Good luck. Mia
I have a friend who is in the exact same situation. She is so bored with her husband but has affection for him and sees her lover 2 or 3 times per year.
Stay away or do not let Jane confined in you about her affair. You can share many other subjects with Jane but not her affair. Good luck. Mia
1
I was lucky. When I met my husband, we were students in universities over 500 miles apart. Even as we courted each other, neither of us demanded that the other forgo a sex life during the long stretches of time we were living apart. This was before HIV, when a dose of penicillin and two weeks on the sidelines were enough to cure anything that might come your way. When we were finally together, we decided to maintain the status quo and not insist on sexual exclusivity, so even though we enjoyed sex with other partners from time to time, we never cheated on each other. It ain't who you sleep with, it's who you wake up with, and we always knew where home was.
1
A cheater of my acquaintance was caught by her adolescent son in a phone conversation with Mr. Wrong.
The son asked with whom she was talking. She lied, but the son didn't believe her.
He kept quiet.
The son asked with whom she was talking. She lied, but the son didn't believe her.
He kept quiet.
1
But in words of Dan Savage, we don't know the intimate details of Jane and Peter's marriage. They might have a "Don't ask, don't tell" arrangement for all the LW knows. But if he's uncomfortable, his conversation should be with Jane, not Peter.
1
I would practice the Golden Rule. Would you like to be informed by a friend that your wife is having an affair? Or would you prefer not to know, or not to believe? I would let the answer guide me.
Boy, people come down harshly on adultery. But really the letter writer should mind his own business - he has no right to upset the apple cart of another person's marriage. They operate on their own balance, and he has no idea what's really going on there. He is perfectly within his rights to tell Jane he won't lie for her, but it is NOT his place to destroy a marriage.
I'd like to hear Dan Savage's advice on this.
As for the marriage, it may be that this affair is a long-term indulgence that doesn't and can't threaten the stability of the marriage. The partners live in separate countries? There's no possibility of them leaving their marriages to live with one another? Maybe Jane really does like being married to Peter, but she cherishes Martin as a source of romance and titillation that she gets once or twice a year.
I'd like to hear Dan Savage's advice on this.
As for the marriage, it may be that this affair is a long-term indulgence that doesn't and can't threaten the stability of the marriage. The partners live in separate countries? There's no possibility of them leaving their marriages to live with one another? Maybe Jane really does like being married to Peter, but she cherishes Martin as a source of romance and titillation that she gets once or twice a year.
I think we all know what Dan Savage's advice would be, and you best not act on it over there in Dubai!
"Yet, as you say, ending your friendship with her fixes nothing."
Excuse me ?? It fixes "Name Withheld", by giving him back his integrity. The correct response to "did you get my pictures?" s/h/b "No, I didn't", followed by pulling Jane aside and explaining why he can no longer socialize with either her or her husband.
Take a principled stand. Stop being an enabler.
Excuse me ?? It fixes "Name Withheld", by giving him back his integrity. The correct response to "did you get my pictures?" s/h/b "No, I didn't", followed by pulling Jane aside and explaining why he can no longer socialize with either her or her husband.
Take a principled stand. Stop being an enabler.
6
I'm putting all this into my new novel, titled "The Ethicist."
1
My first thought was and remains, to stay out of it. You may end up being collateral damage no matter what you do. Then I read this line: "Moral narcissism is about being more concerned with the cleanliness of your hands than with how your conduct shapes the lives around you." Now my head hurts, because when Narcissism gets thrown in the mix, the truth comes out. It's not about the couple. It's about Me.
This "advice" is not very utilitarian -- simply rehashing the ethical quandaries the writer expresses himself, without proposing a solution. And why on earth should loyalty to Jane, who appears to be a narcissist (and who is making the writer complicit in her narcissism/morally suspect behavior), automatically trump loyalty to the cheated-upon spouse? Jane is a selfish jerk for making her friend complicit in her lies. Telling her so is unlikely to change her mind. In fact, if they stay together, they will probably both turn on you because you were a witness. Extricate yourself if you possibly can.
1
We have only one take-it-or-leave-it model for marriage, with none of the exceptions or understandings that other cultures take for granted. We can't even decide on its features for ourselves, not with Aunt Tilly in the pews.
Solution: make one set of vows for public consumption, taking part in the ritual expectations in the same spirit as pledging allegiance to the flag or taking communion. Something you do because it is expected, it keeps social peace, and demonstrates that you fit in.
But before this event, full of pageantry and expense, takes your marriage out of your hands, come to an agreement with one another.
In this case, I suspect the husband would have actually agreed that Jane should have a few days walkabout each year, to enjoy as she likes. In fact I'd say this should be an option for everyone -- if I were in the business of imposing my values on other people.
Who am I? Aunt Tilly?
Solution: make one set of vows for public consumption, taking part in the ritual expectations in the same spirit as pledging allegiance to the flag or taking communion. Something you do because it is expected, it keeps social peace, and demonstrates that you fit in.
But before this event, full of pageantry and expense, takes your marriage out of your hands, come to an agreement with one another.
In this case, I suspect the husband would have actually agreed that Jane should have a few days walkabout each year, to enjoy as she likes. In fact I'd say this should be an option for everyone -- if I were in the business of imposing my values on other people.
Who am I? Aunt Tilly?
This is very simple, Jane is your friend, she confided in you and that means you are special to her, there are very few people in life we can call friends and if u dared to bring out the secrets she so sincerely poured out to you , then YOU would not be worth having her friendship. Second of all no one is a mind reader, if you dont wanna feel guilty simply tell her you rather not hear any more about that because you dont judge her, but you have come to know and respect her man and you consider him a friend and rather not lie to him just like you would never wanna lie to her.
Hmmmmm, not ok Jane.
A. Pull back on the friendship with Jane & Peter (eg: no socialising out of work) - she is using you to make her affair ok.
B. You seem like a wonderful person! Keep going with your wonderful life.
A. Pull back on the friendship with Jane & Peter (eg: no socialising out of work) - she is using you to make her affair ok.
B. You seem like a wonderful person! Keep going with your wonderful life.
1
No need to join in this deceit. He should have simply answered the question about receiving supposedly texted Golden Gate photos with an honest "nope". That would have put Jane on notice that she can't expect him to lie for her.
2
You need to become ignorant, and quickly. It isn't your life you're thinking about, it's that of your friends. It doesn't concern you, regardless of what you suspect, know, or have known in the past.
Fugetaboudit! Saying anyting to anyone about anyting can only hurt someone you like, love, or respect. Your feelings don't matter, nor does your ethical framework. Except to you.
Fugetaboudit! Saying anyting to anyone about anyting can only hurt someone you like, love, or respect. Your feelings don't matter, nor does your ethical framework. Except to you.
Jane has: (1) A husband for the "same old, same old"; (2) a once-a-year lover for romance; and (3) a "friend" to confirm her lies. Does it strike the "friend" that she is using him, surely not a very friendly attitude?
1
If someone writes an ethical advice column, is it more ethical to give a clear, concise straight answer to the correspondent with a problem or to write a long, ambiguous essay intended to entertain readers?
4
Moral narcissism? Morality is acting ethically, and calling it narcissistic is ridiculous. I agree with Michael in LA--tell Jane you're uncomfortable lying and that you want no part of covering up an affair. If she agrees then you can continue the friendship and keep your conscience clean. If she doesn't agree to it, I'd discontinue the friendship with her. There's nothing narcissistic about being ethical. Moreover, you will gain peace of mind.
4
This has got to be made up.
The guy is probably a girl, and the girl is writing a post-post-post modern novel about this sort of thing and seeing if she can rope the NYT Ethicist into seriously answering a fake question.
And it will be a bonus for her novel if the NYT story shoots to the top of the most mailed list.
Oops! Did that just happen?
People, your legs are being pulled.
The guy is probably a girl, and the girl is writing a post-post-post modern novel about this sort of thing and seeing if she can rope the NYT Ethicist into seriously answering a fake question.
And it will be a bonus for her novel if the NYT story shoots to the top of the most mailed list.
Oops! Did that just happen?
People, your legs are being pulled.
2
You honestly think that this kind of thing doesn't go on? And you live in PARIS?
If NW wants to have a clear conscience, he'll need to ease out of both friendships with both Jane and Peter. How can he look in the mirror while being friends with Peter?
Jane is a first class jerk.
Why do you need friends like that? I'd end the relationship with Jane, simply tell her you do not want her in your life, and simply let her deal with what she wants to tell Peter about why you're not around so much.
Why do you need friends like that? I'd end the relationship with Jane, simply tell her you do not want her in your life, and simply let her deal with what she wants to tell Peter about why you're not around so much.
1
Sure wish someone had told me my spouse was cheating. Some "friends" most certainly knew, and remained silent, thus proving they never were friends of mine. Had someone told me (like Peter) I would have had a chance to get out of a dishonest relationship and meet someone who would respect me, as my cheating Ex did not. Instead I wasted almost twenty years of my life being monogamous and faithful to a serial cheater. If the OP can't bring himself to tell Peter, he should send an anonymous letter. To make the unilateral decision that "maybe" Peter wouldn't want to know is a copout. Shallow people like to walk around saying they are above the fray because that makes them feel superior. If I were Peter I would certainly be grateful for the truth, something Jane and by extension the writer, seem not to value.
4
Mind your own business
3
Just remember that none of this is really any of your business--you shouldn't have been told about it. Pretend you don't know about it, and always behave as if it weren't the case. Definitely don't collude in the subterfuge. These people are, after all, adults and responsible for their own lives--and, whatever comes of the choices they make.
3
Tell Jane you will not ever again cover for her, and that if she asks you in front of her husband about the photos she didn't text from LoveNestLand, you'll be honest and state plainly that you never got any. And then she can do whatever she likes with that.
I was in an analogous situation and, from experience, my advice to the letter writer is to tell the liar that although he will not actively out the liar, he will never again back her up in a lie (as he did regarding her story about the photos from San Francisco).
If his situation is similar to mine, he'll be dumped. It's a learning experience.
If his situation is similar to mine, he'll be dumped. It's a learning experience.
2
Unless Jane is dull she must have understood that her question to NW about non existent photos might trigger an innocent inquiry from her husband to see them.Sorry, but this tale does not pass the straight face test.
1
Who voluntarily asks to see someone else's vacation photos?
First of all your answer is way too wordy, and wordy in a non helpful lack of advice giving way. If this guy gets married and someone knew his wife was having an affair, would he want to be told? I would think most people would so yes, tell the husband. If he's too chicken then send an unsigned letter but the husband has a right to know
2
First of all,she shouldn't have put you in the position you are in,by doing this she is not a good friend at all.Secondly,Honesty IS the best policy,I would tell your friend about it but not name names,so he can drag the truth out of her.That way you don't risk her boyfriends marriage to fall apart,which involves children.Bottom line is Jane shouldn't be in a relationship at all that should be built on trust.
1
The letter writer ought to drop Jane like a hot pan. She's a self-obsessed loser, not a "quirky intellectual." There is NOTHING "intellectual" about anyone's conduct as described. Quite the reverse.
1
Oh, who cares. Let a girl get some strange once a year.
3
Sir, you are indeed in a tight spot. However no need to worry. The Ethicist clearly sides with telling the truth and has let you off the hook. The specific details provided will allow Peter to realize exactly what is going on assuming he throughly reads the NYT.
Tell Jane she may never ask you to lie again. If she cannot honor this, she is no friend.
I don't understand the headline, "Should I Tell My Friend's Husband That She's Having an Affair?" when the querent says, "But I am not going to tell Peter about the affair — that’s not my role."
So that's off the table. Two observations:
First, the affair predates this marriage, which makes it a very different proposition from one begun during the marriage. The Jane whom Peter married came with another relationship--albeit secret, but well established. The fact that she made the commitment to Peter while maintaining this other liaison means it's part of her. Not a part he'd want, and not saying it's right, but it's not unlike partners who conceal secret vices, debts, and sundry love children before the knot is tied. Dearly beloved, do your due diligence before the big day.
Secondly, the only action the querent needs to take to stay on the high road is to refuse to be a beard for Jane. Instead of giving her cover, for example, he could have played dumb about the San Francisco photographs, but without disclosing the fact that Jane was lying. But he owes her the warning that she may no longer include him in her ruses, by which she does make him complicit in deception.
All that said, something tells me there's either more to this little tale than we're being given, or it's not entirely authentic. It's too...careful.
So that's off the table. Two observations:
First, the affair predates this marriage, which makes it a very different proposition from one begun during the marriage. The Jane whom Peter married came with another relationship--albeit secret, but well established. The fact that she made the commitment to Peter while maintaining this other liaison means it's part of her. Not a part he'd want, and not saying it's right, but it's not unlike partners who conceal secret vices, debts, and sundry love children before the knot is tied. Dearly beloved, do your due diligence before the big day.
Secondly, the only action the querent needs to take to stay on the high road is to refuse to be a beard for Jane. Instead of giving her cover, for example, he could have played dumb about the San Francisco photographs, but without disclosing the fact that Jane was lying. But he owes her the warning that she may no longer include him in her ruses, by which she does make him complicit in deception.
All that said, something tells me there's either more to this little tale than we're being given, or it's not entirely authentic. It's too...careful.
1
@Penn
He "owes" her no warning; she's a weasel who surprised him with the text ruse.
And an unknown affair that existed before their marriage is no more acceptable than one started after the nuptials...what a ridiculous notion!
He "owes" her no warning; she's a weasel who surprised him with the text ruse.
And an unknown affair that existed before their marriage is no more acceptable than one started after the nuptials...what a ridiculous notion!
Why don't you mind your own business? How can you spy on your friend and tell her husand that she's having an affair. You are pretty low level. If her affair bothers you, try not to have so much to do with her and her husband. You might tell her tht her affair bothers you--BUT it is really none of your business.
1
I can tell you exactly what will happen -- Martin's wife will die, Jane will confess the affair to Peter, say she's loved Martin for decades, and then leave Peter and marry Martin. Peter will be crushed, hurt and bewildered. He will curse a lot about Jane and then find a hot young girlfriend in revenge. The couples' children's friends will wonder about the true parenthood of that one child of Peter and Jane's who has an uncanny resemblance to Martin. And all the family get-togethers will be pretty strange for the next couple years. So, Name Withheld, now that you know what will happen, what will you do?
4
That was a very good response. And I hope I never find myself in the same situation. Yuk.
Two clear takeaways here: the author is having an affair with someone and the letter writer wants to sleep with Jane.
1
It's not that difficult - Jane apparently caught you off-guard and included you in her deception in front of her husband. Tell her as calmly as you can to please never put you in that position again. Not too much detail as to why is needed but by saying "never" you're putting her on notice about potential unnamed consequences.
Other than that, say no more about it. It's not your business.
Other than that, say no more about it. It's not your business.
Jane needs a therapist. There are plenty of other people in the world to be friends with. Why spend your limited time on the planet involved in such a degrading friendship?
Jason
Jason
Pretty simple, how about you tell the truth instead of becoming complicit in the whole "Afair"? You become just another liar aiding another lying, cheating adulteress. If she has no self respect or respect for you, you can at least stand up for yourself.
2
What does one do when one has a long-time friend with major psychiatric problems who is seeing someone met on an on-line dating site and that "someone" is cheating on the very fragile friend? I think friend should be told what "someone" is doing; others think no, let the friend find out via other methods.
You need advice from a professional. I wouldn't recommend the ethicist.
I would tell him. Wouldn't you want to know if you were in his position?
2
I agree with the commentators saying that the LW should fade away from both.
And I wouldn't bother explaining myself to Jane. She deems herself entitled to lie to the men closest to her. No enlightened conversation about honesty is changing that.
The LW seems like a thoughtful and decent fellow who doesn't need this nonsense. Because it is likely Peter will find out and will demand an explanation. My advice: find more appropriate friends.
And I wouldn't bother explaining myself to Jane. She deems herself entitled to lie to the men closest to her. No enlightened conversation about honesty is changing that.
The LW seems like a thoughtful and decent fellow who doesn't need this nonsense. Because it is likely Peter will find out and will demand an explanation. My advice: find more appropriate friends.
2
I'm not convinced Peter doesn't already know.
1
Yes, Peter probably does sense that something is missing from his emotional life with Jane. But he may not recognize what it is. Eventually he will likely find another mate even if the truth about Jane's affair is never revealed. I think he should strongly urge Jane to tell Peter about her affair so that the couple can face the reality of their marriage and take it from there. Let the chips fall where they may. Secret betrayal has a way of poisoning one's memories of a marriage. especially of the one who was betrayed.
@Jay
Oh for crying out loud, if the LW thought Peter had an inkling about the affair he wouldn't have asked for advice!
Oh for crying out loud, if the LW thought Peter had an inkling about the affair he wouldn't have asked for advice!
I would not lie, nor be part of such a painful nasty thing to do to your spouse... I visited my brother once many decades ago and he used my visit to have an excuse to go the bar where he met his girlfriend and went up into the hotel for hours.... leaving me alone and angry for becoming part of his affair.
I did not like his wife, but I told my brother that night, he tells his wife he is having an affair, leave her and be with his girlfriend, or I would tell his wife, I gave him one week..
He left his wife, moved with his new girlfriend whom was crying on my shoulder 2 years ago when he did not come home last night....again...
Morality is not optional, I call 911 when I see a bank being robbed...and I will not get involved in other peoples crimes be it of passion or not...
I did not like his wife, but I told my brother that night, he tells his wife he is having an affair, leave her and be with his girlfriend, or I would tell his wife, I gave him one week..
He left his wife, moved with his new girlfriend whom was crying on my shoulder 2 years ago when he did not come home last night....again...
Morality is not optional, I call 911 when I see a bank being robbed...and I will not get involved in other peoples crimes be it of passion or not...
2
I have a close friend. Many years ago, I witnessed his then wife with another man. She did not see me, but I knew that she was with her ex boyfriend. I thought about telling my friend, but I knew him well enough that he would not believe me. I did not want to lose a good friend. So I did the best thing. I went to my friend's mother and informed her. In no time, my friend's mother caught her soon to be ex daughter in law with the other man. I never let him know how his mother knew, and she never told him. And I still have my friend, and he is married to a better person.
2
Jane says, I ain't never been in love
I don't know what it is
She only knows if someone wants her
- jane's addiction
I don't know what it is
She only knows if someone wants her
- jane's addiction
1
Tell Jane that you're not a liar and for her to tell her husband the truth or end your friendship with her.
1
What I would tell the writer. You don't know what goes on inside a marriage. Maybe if you knew all the facts, maybe Jane would be justified. You have no idea and all your assumptions about the nature of the relationship are just assumptions. It's really none of your business and you have no responsibility to "fix" things by interfering. It would be immoral of you to interfere by disclosing anything. It's none of your business. Therefore, your conscience should be clear. And if you fear of being asked why you stayed silent, just cut and paste what is in this comment, that you have no insight into this relationship and it's none of your business.
2
If you a person of honor, you haven't a choice. You must inform the husband his wife has committed adultery and implicated yourself in its cover-up. Friendship is not the issue. Were your wife doing likewise wouldn't you want to know?
3
The anchor point for me in a situation like this is personal integrity. The core issue I see for NW here is that his integrity is being compromised by Jane making him a partner in her deceit. He clearly values honesty and is disturbed by the lack of it in Jane’s relationship with Peter. NW needs to make a conscious decision as to whether he wants to be true to his integrity or allow it to be compromised by Jane’s behavior. If I was NW, I’d tell Jane that I feel compromised by her bringing me into her deceit and that I’m no longer willing to participate in it. As her friend, I’d encourage her to reflect on what she is doing and whether it is right in terms of her personal integrity. I'd anticipate that NW would be guided by whether Jane's ensuing conduct conforms to his sense of integrity.
5
I was amazed by the response to this question. Of course Peter should be told his wife is cheating on him, and I can't think of a better person to do it than the questioner, who at the moment is not being a friend to either Peter or his wife. Why on earth all this hand-wringing - I mean to say, self-justifying intellectual posing - about something so obvious.
4
I think your silence is consent, not that she needs it. Your silence says you know, but it isn't such a bad thing that you need to tell her husband. You are complicit in the crime.
I think you should tell Martin, he won't believe you and your friendships with all involved will be over. Which is really another justification for you to decide not to tell Martin.
And by telling Martin, you will remove a burden from your shoulders just like Jane removed part of her burden by telling you.
Are you Jane?
I think you should tell Martin, he won't believe you and your friendships with all involved will be over. Which is really another justification for you to decide not to tell Martin.
And by telling Martin, you will remove a burden from your shoulders just like Jane removed part of her burden by telling you.
Are you Jane?
1
Life is too short to be lived under a lie. Jane found her soulmate, but did Peter? Maybe Jane is preventing Peter to fully own his life. If this affair is best for all involved, why doesn't Peter know about it? This story put in the right context and maybe Peter would not divorce and even feel compassionate for this affair of his wife. Hardly, but possibly. People can surprise us, and our paternalism is indeed disrespectfull. Now, you can't talk to Peter but you can at least try show Jane how disrespectfull and egoistically she is acting towards her husband. Maybe Jane will understand no one deserves to be hostage of (a false?) love, especially a husband she supposedly values.
2
It is clear to me that Name Withheld is deeply troubled by his own role in the deception or he would not have felt the need to write to The Ethicist. Were I to find myself in his place, I know I would feel extremely uncomfortable whenever I happened to be in the company or Jane and/or Peter. Moreover, even though I might have been close friends with Jane for a longer time than I have known Peter, I would most likely feel angry with her for drawing me into her web of deceit. I would also feel disappointed in myself as well for going along with her. and thus compromising my own integrity. So....all that being said, I am pretty sure that even though I would probably lose their friendship, I would tell Peter about his wife's affair and let the proverbial chips fall where they may. It is not my responsibility to help preserve a marriage which is built on a serious lie, and it is also very emotionally unhealthy for me to continue supporting Jane and her lies.
2
Does the letter writer know, or has known Jane in the biblical sense?
How else could she have such power over a man?
How else could she have such power over a man?
Love conquers all.
The Author has several options. The two most reasonable choices are the following: 1) He tells Jane that she can not put him in the position of lying to the husband again. 2) Stop being friends with the couple. It is not up to him to disclose the affair.
1
Who tells friends of the opposite sex they are having affairs outside of marriage? Many things wrong here. That's on top of the list. Nothing wrong with a romp in the sheets, we are prisoners of a Puritanical culture, but the all parties must agree.
Ethical people do not aid and abet in the deception of others. At a minimum, NW can't be a willing partner in Jane's coverup, and if Peter ever asks him directly about Jane's affair, he's got to tell the truth. That's what decent humans do.
2
Left unmentioned is Jane forcing the letter-writer to corroborate her lie about San Francisco. That's a level of participation above and beyond mere silence, and I think the letter-writer should say that on the next such incident, his mouth will open. She made him actively lie, too.
4
Name Withheld can let sleeping dogs lie, but not compromise himself. If Jane asks if he got the pictures, he can simply say "no" (with a puzzled expression) ....and let her figure out an explanation such as "well, I'm having trouble sending large files" etc. He can stay above the fray and not be an accomplice, thereby remaining true to both friends. And Jane will respect him as someone who is not a liar.
1
Clearly Peter is already suspicious. That's why Jane tried to rope LW into her alibi. Now LW is complicit and feeling remorse for it, as well he should.
Drop Jane like a hot potato. She's toxic and likes playing men against each other, being the center of attention in a web of secrets and lies. Woman is trouble. Don't let her ruin you (and your marriage) too. (Because YOUR spouse--if you're married--is going to get on your case for keeping this secret when all is found out!)
Drop Jane like a hot potato. She's toxic and likes playing men against each other, being the center of attention in a web of secrets and lies. Woman is trouble. Don't let her ruin you (and your marriage) too. (Because YOUR spouse--if you're married--is going to get on your case for keeping this secret when all is found out!)
4
Get away from the whole mess. Jane and Peter chose each other, and their relationship is theirs to work out. But you have a choice too, and you deserve friends who can give you more positive experiences than this tangle of lies, deceit, and self-deception. (Jane's occasional nookie sessions with a married man, are not a real relationship, much less "the love of her life." And her choices effectively make it impossible for her to have a truly loving relationship.)
Look for friends who are honest and straightforward, who will bring comfort and ease into your life.
Look for friends who are honest and straightforward, who will bring comfort and ease into your life.
6
The answerer overlooked a VERY important detail: Jane has crossed a line and is now using this friend to confirm her lie about the business trip. Jane's casual mention of those photos of the Golden Gate Bridge were a test of the friend's loyalty--and he passed with flying colors. Jane is doubly guilty here, betraying her husband, and dragging her friend into it as a co-conspirator.
This is what you must do, friend: stop being friends with both of them. If you remain friends with Jane, you are implicitly collaborating WITH Jane to keep her adultery a secret from Peter. If you remain friends with Peter, you are stabbing him in the back because your real loyalty is to Jane and keeping her secret so she can keep screwing Martin.
What you SHOULD have done when Jane asked if you received those photos: pretend to choke on the shrimp, cough loudly, and run to the men's room.
The answerer needs to learn to re-read an answer and delete the wordiness and needless ruminating. Get to the point, and be clear about it!
This is what you must do, friend: stop being friends with both of them. If you remain friends with Jane, you are implicitly collaborating WITH Jane to keep her adultery a secret from Peter. If you remain friends with Peter, you are stabbing him in the back because your real loyalty is to Jane and keeping her secret so she can keep screwing Martin.
What you SHOULD have done when Jane asked if you received those photos: pretend to choke on the shrimp, cough loudly, and run to the men's room.
The answerer needs to learn to re-read an answer and delete the wordiness and needless ruminating. Get to the point, and be clear about it!
3
Peter and Jane made a legally binding social contract with each other. Each party has the right to know if the other party has broken its terms.
Peter should be told. He has an absolute right to know that his wife is having sexual relations outside the marriage, as those could be dangerous to his health. If Martin and Jane work out a way to be together, Peter's financial and professional life could be at risk as well. Are they planning kids? HUGE risk. What if Jane gets pregnant by Martin?
Drawing the writer directly into the lies was an extreme imposition, although the writer had an out: He could have simply said he didn't get any pictures.
Jane needs to either go it alone, or find an agreeable husband, perhaps a husband in the same circumstances, or who wouldn't mind a license to step out himself once or twice a year. Truly, what any consenting adults choose to do is between those consenting adults. Peter, however, is involved, and his consent has not been obtained.
Peter should be told. He has an absolute right to know that his wife is having sexual relations outside the marriage, as those could be dangerous to his health. If Martin and Jane work out a way to be together, Peter's financial and professional life could be at risk as well. Are they planning kids? HUGE risk. What if Jane gets pregnant by Martin?
Drawing the writer directly into the lies was an extreme imposition, although the writer had an out: He could have simply said he didn't get any pictures.
Jane needs to either go it alone, or find an agreeable husband, perhaps a husband in the same circumstances, or who wouldn't mind a license to step out himself once or twice a year. Truly, what any consenting adults choose to do is between those consenting adults. Peter, however, is involved, and his consent has not been obtained.
3
Wow. So many nasty comments which seem so heartless to the complexities of life, friendship and marriage.
It may indeed end badly but to willfully screw everyone based on some 'convention' or even a vow is just not right.
It may indeed end badly but to willfully screw everyone based on some 'convention' or even a vow is just not right.
1
It's my opinion that you should distance yourself from Jane, but not reveal her secret. Really, your depiction of her is unflattering to say the least. For her to mention her "business trip" in mutual company with you & her husband implies that she wishes you to help support her subterfuge; not doing her friends any favors. And by the way, for a "a quirky intellectual", she comes off sounding naive and feckless. If "Martin" was truly her "soulmate", maybe she should've taken action, I don't know, before Martin acquired a family, and after her last failed marriage. If she's as thoughtful as you describe, perhaps she should've discovered by now that she's not really doing the whole marriage thing right.
2
Quirky intellectuals! What a load. Let's reverse genders to see the issue more clearly
2
Peter should not waste any more of the time of his life on his round heeled wife. She is a cheater and she's also helping her lover cheat on his wife and children. NM would be doing him a huge favor by telling him.
So what if Name Withheld has been "friends" with cheating Jane. She does not deserve NM's friendship, especially after she made him complicit in her betrayal of NM's "less of a friend" Peter.
If NM doesn't want to tell Peter he should break off the friendship with both Peter and Jane. It's way too complicated a relationship and cannot be called a true friendship as to either people in the couple.
And if I were Peter and found out that NM had hidden Jane's libidinous outings from me while forming a "bro bond" with me, I'd be tempted to "bro unbond" by giving NM a good thrashing.
So what if Name Withheld has been "friends" with cheating Jane. She does not deserve NM's friendship, especially after she made him complicit in her betrayal of NM's "less of a friend" Peter.
If NM doesn't want to tell Peter he should break off the friendship with both Peter and Jane. It's way too complicated a relationship and cannot be called a true friendship as to either people in the couple.
And if I were Peter and found out that NM had hidden Jane's libidinous outings from me while forming a "bro bond" with me, I'd be tempted to "bro unbond" by giving NM a good thrashing.
2
The knee jerk and moralistic assumption that all affairs are evil is simplistic and not in keeping with reality. The statistics on how many human beings have affairs, some of them saving marriages rather than the contrary, would then mean that over 50% of the population of the western world, at least, are evil. I rather doubt that. Human, yes, evil, no. That this man thinks it's somehow his business to make a moral judgement (his, not the couples) is in itself at least imposing his moral values on other, and certainly self righteous that he thinks it's his right. There's a certain moral narcissism in that. The Ethicist needs to spend more time thinking about human happiness, and less about what is conventionally morally "correct."
1
I don't see that in his question. He is trying to do the right thing. He doesn't want to be too judgmental, but he is uncomfortable with the deception and his participation in it. That seems reasonable. To quote him: "I don’t judge people’s sexual lives, and I’m very liberal philosophically. I’m less comfortable with adultery, because it involves lying, but usually I don’t feel the need even to have opinions about other people’s affairs."
He even suggests that the affair might be a good thing: "deep inside, I think the affair may be good for everyone."
I think you've crated a straw man here to make your point, which seems to be that you are more enlightened on the subject of extra-marital affairs that the rest of us. That sounds a lot closer to moral narcissism to me than this question--or the answer.
He even suggests that the affair might be a good thing: "deep inside, I think the affair may be good for everyone."
I think you've crated a straw man here to make your point, which seems to be that you are more enlightened on the subject of extra-marital affairs that the rest of us. That sounds a lot closer to moral narcissism to me than this question--or the answer.
You have the agreements of friendship with Jane. Probably they are implicit, but this is an opportunity to make them explicit and for you to re-claim your power by telling her what is acceptable and what is not.
If that is how she is treating her husband, deceit must be OK with her - and she probably thinks she can deceive you too.
If that is how she is treating her husband, deceit must be OK with her - and she probably thinks she can deceive you too.
Name Withheld, insist to Jane that she never again draws you into supporting her fictions that cover her real activities. After that, stay the heck away from this situation--nothing good can come from your disclosure to Peter. Jane seems to have compartmentalized her life, her seldom-seen Martin seems to be on the same wavelength, and unless Jane and Peter split over something else this can go on for quite a long time. No harm no foul.
3
If you're a person of integrity, there is no place for a "friend" like Jane. You should tell her you can no longer be friends and refer to this scenario as the cause (assuming it's true). Her willful betrayal of those closest to her tells you all you need to know about her character.
Ideally, you would have done this as soon as you found out, to avoid this ongoing discomfort and compromise. Failing that, I would view it as your duty to let the guy know, since you've been party to deceiving him all this time.
Your integrity should always trump your loyalty, and you should ask yourself, would you want someone to tell YOU? How would you feel if this guy makes a major financial investment with her, or has a child with her and finds out about this affair afterward?
Ideally, you would have done this as soon as you found out, to avoid this ongoing discomfort and compromise. Failing that, I would view it as your duty to let the guy know, since you've been party to deceiving him all this time.
Your integrity should always trump your loyalty, and you should ask yourself, would you want someone to tell YOU? How would you feel if this guy makes a major financial investment with her, or has a child with her and finds out about this affair afterward?
1
For one partner to successfully lead a double life, the other needs to be sufficiently distracted with their own stuff. What if Peter happens to be having an affair, too? And, for Jane to pull the "Golden Gate Bridge" move, she's either getting bored with Peter and will soon be ready to end it herself, or she's deriving some kind of perverse pleasure out of getting you to do her dirty work.
More importantly, how's your love life going, NW? Take a step back, my friend.
More importantly, how's your love life going, NW? Take a step back, my friend.
1
Peter deserves the right to choose whether he wants to stay in this relationship. Allowing him to willingly live a lie is huge diservice to any friendship. I would be angry at first but thank you later.
2
This column is an excellent example of how "ethics" differs from everyday norms of social behavior (a.k.a., manners, etiquette, socialization, etc.). We're not talking about trivial matters here -- an entire marriage and two friendships are at risk.
Ultimately, ethics is about morality: Right and wrong. Even good and evil. As such, morality must be grounded in something far more sturdy than individual preference or "convenience." Otherwise, you're just "making it up" for each passing situation. Some turn to religious faith; others look to secular philosophy or even something as simple as family standards.
In this case, Jane is clearly doing something wrong (lying, cheating, betraying). Peter is the unwitting primary victim. And "Name Withheld" is the secondary victim, by dint of Jane's cruel manipulation.
None of us are ever required to accept victimization. No are we required to acquiesce in someone else's evil deeds. So my advice to Name Withheld is this: Tell your friend, Jane, that you are deeply hurt and angered by her behavior. Ask her to come clean to Peter. If she refuses, you are free to tell the truth to Peter if he ever asks. And if Jane ever asks you to cover up for her again, pull the plug on that friendship. Should Peter then ask you why he doesn't see you around anymore, just tell the truth.
As Eleanor Roosevelt, so famously said: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." Don't be a victim.
Ultimately, ethics is about morality: Right and wrong. Even good and evil. As such, morality must be grounded in something far more sturdy than individual preference or "convenience." Otherwise, you're just "making it up" for each passing situation. Some turn to religious faith; others look to secular philosophy or even something as simple as family standards.
In this case, Jane is clearly doing something wrong (lying, cheating, betraying). Peter is the unwitting primary victim. And "Name Withheld" is the secondary victim, by dint of Jane's cruel manipulation.
None of us are ever required to accept victimization. No are we required to acquiesce in someone else's evil deeds. So my advice to Name Withheld is this: Tell your friend, Jane, that you are deeply hurt and angered by her behavior. Ask her to come clean to Peter. If she refuses, you are free to tell the truth to Peter if he ever asks. And if Jane ever asks you to cover up for her again, pull the plug on that friendship. Should Peter then ask you why he doesn't see you around anymore, just tell the truth.
As Eleanor Roosevelt, so famously said: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." Don't be a victim.
Get on with your life. Let others live theirs the way they want, or can.
The friend could have just said, "No. I didn't get your pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge. Please, send them again!" And then give her a look.
3
and better yet, include: "and be sure to send them to Peter, too!"
Peter knows.. he has to know. Stay away from these two...
What truly despicable advice from this columnist. Totally giving this "Jane" a pass on conducting an affair through not one but TWO marriages. The woman in a true narcissist. That the writer/moral infant, didn't, ahem, divorce himself from Jane when he learned of the extent of her moral depravity, underlines his infancy.
Well, as the writer below stated, he needs to "human up" and tell Jane he's done participating in her pretense, and if she ever shares anymore info about "martin" again, he'll drop both aggrieved spouses a note.
Well, as the writer below stated, he needs to "human up" and tell Jane he's done participating in her pretense, and if she ever shares anymore info about "martin" again, he'll drop both aggrieved spouses a note.
4
What about sexually transmitted infections? There's no reason to assume Martin or his wife are monogamous. An anonymous note sent to Peter on the basis of his exposure to possible STIs would not be amiss.
2
I was the "Peter" in this and none of our friends told me. If they had, I would have been upset that they waited so long but the circle that knew was not that close to me. The humiliation that everyone knew but me still hangs over me over 25 years later. Were I ever in this situation, I would approach Jane first, tell her if she doesn't end it and tell Peter, then I will. Then I would be fully prepared to loose both friends or help them through the chaos. That part will be their choice.
3
Why do people ask this question? The answer is NO. Butt out of people's personal stuff! And why did the columnist go ON AND ON AND ON?
3
I agree with your position on the substance.
As to why the columnist went on and on: because it's his job to analyze the complexities of moral quandaries as presented by readers. Readers don't write in to this column looking for a yes or no answer. Maybe this judt isn't the right column for you as a reader.
As to why the columnist went on and on: because it's his job to analyze the complexities of moral quandaries as presented by readers. Readers don't write in to this column looking for a yes or no answer. Maybe this judt isn't the right column for you as a reader.
Good advice, however, I don't think this guy needs to lie at all. He just needs to not lie and if directly asked by Peter, he should tell the truth. When Jane asked if he got the pictures from San Francisco, his response should have been, "no." If that was going to raise suspicions from Peter, that's not his problem. He needs to keep his moral compass clear and not lie for his friend, nor deceive for his friend. Whatever his "keeping it real" does to Jane is of no consequence to him, she is the one lying and need not expect friends to lie for her.
3
Jane is using her friend as a diary, at best, and like a dish rag, at worst. Either way she is not a good person. The friend should tell her, never again involve me in your lies.
2
With 'quirky intellectual' friend like Jane who needs enemies who put into a moral dilemma. Tell Jane, you're done lying for her and or other friend who needs lying and deception!
1
I found myself agreeing with many ("dump jane, exit gracefully").
But then reconsidered. What if Martin sleeps around and gives Jane (and then Peter) an STD? Maybe even a serious one? Is this reason to re-think a non-interventionist position?
And then reconsidered again. What would I want a friend to tell me if I were Peter? Part of me would want to be an ostrich and not know (if my marriage is good) assuming that I would NEVER find out (unlikely if it is an ongoing thing). Part of me would want my friend to force my cheating spouse to talk to me (rather hear it from them than from friend). But that's me and I have no insight into what is important to Peter.
And then I thought, what behavior (violation of trust or crime or whatever) would justify telling Peter. What if Jane was stealing all their money and putting it away in a Swiss bank account to eventually run off with Martin? What if Jane was shooting up heroin? What if Jane was committing violent crimes of some sort? Would any of those situations make me as a friend re-think telling Peter?
But then reconsidered. What if Martin sleeps around and gives Jane (and then Peter) an STD? Maybe even a serious one? Is this reason to re-think a non-interventionist position?
And then reconsidered again. What would I want a friend to tell me if I were Peter? Part of me would want to be an ostrich and not know (if my marriage is good) assuming that I would NEVER find out (unlikely if it is an ongoing thing). Part of me would want my friend to force my cheating spouse to talk to me (rather hear it from them than from friend). But that's me and I have no insight into what is important to Peter.
And then I thought, what behavior (violation of trust or crime or whatever) would justify telling Peter. What if Jane was stealing all their money and putting it away in a Swiss bank account to eventually run off with Martin? What if Jane was shooting up heroin? What if Jane was committing violent crimes of some sort? Would any of those situations make me as a friend re-think telling Peter?
1
Then, there's another possibility. That Peter is not as happy as he seems, that he might appreciate knowing of Jane's affair so he could end the marriage and seek something giving him more what he wants. It's even possible, heck, quite possible, that he has his own affair(s). So I'd say, no, just leave it all alone. If you even tell her you are uncomfortable with lying, it may upset your equilibrium and make for awkwardness when you are all three together, another complication. If you enjoy the relationships, just let it be.
I think all this time "Jane" has been hitting on you, and you just don't see it.
What a lot of judges out there with what I can only presume are a lot of perfect friends. I agree the author should tell Jane he won't lie for her again and won't be put on the spot.
2
"Name Withheld" should increase his male bonding by having an affair with Peter and both he and Peter should not tell Jane. No mention should be made of Martin.
3
Jane's husband is probably getting suspicious so she
set you up to cover for her. I wouldn't tell the husband,
but I'd end the "friendship" with Jane. It's just too
smarmy.
set you up to cover for her. I wouldn't tell the husband,
but I'd end the "friendship" with Jane. It's just too
smarmy.
3
If it were me, I would tell Jane that if she did not reveal the truth to her husband, that we could not be friends anymore because I would not want to continue to be a participant (and a wholly unwilling one at that) in the deceit of Peter. Jane should tell Peter about the affair, no one else.
1
story doesnt make sense
jane wouldnt ask about the SF pictures unless she knew that writer would cover her and not fumble. there is more here than meets the eye. writer seems to be more of an accomplice than he is letting on. at least jane thinks so.
this affair predates jane's marriage to peter. this is a problem for me. it is one thing to give a marriage commitment purely, then screw up. it is another thing to lie when giving the marriage commitment. i believe in good intentions, understanding that actions often fail to live up to them. i do not believe in bad intentions.
screw jane...not literally.
jane wouldnt ask about the SF pictures unless she knew that writer would cover her and not fumble. there is more here than meets the eye. writer seems to be more of an accomplice than he is letting on. at least jane thinks so.
this affair predates jane's marriage to peter. this is a problem for me. it is one thing to give a marriage commitment purely, then screw up. it is another thing to lie when giving the marriage commitment. i believe in good intentions, understanding that actions often fail to live up to them. i do not believe in bad intentions.
screw jane...not literally.
1
Does anyone else miss the 70s when everyone was having an affair of two or three and so was the partner?
1
"Golden Gate" I thought it looked like the Verrazano, would have been my answer.
2
Wrong Answer. The writer's friendship with Jane does not entitle her to enlist him, nor require him to even passively participate in such a crucial, hurtful deception as serial adultery. Not volunteering the information to Peter is one thing, but going along with knowledge of it as if everything is fine and then becoming part of the conspiracy by lying himself is wholly inexcusable.
At this point, the only honorable course of action that would let the writer look himself in the mirror is to go to Jane, tell her choice is either to tell her husband the truth or the writer will. If she chooses neither then he will have to walk away from their friendship.
On that point, why would the writer want to continue a friendship with a woman (or a man, if the roles were reversed) capable of such continual, serial deceit? This is not a small character flaw, and quite different from a case of 'Oh, I made a mistake, a one night stand but I can't tell my husband" - it is continual, deliberate cheating. No amount of rationalizing ("Jane needs this outlet" - baloney) makes it right. The Ethicist is dead wrong on this, and that the writer has known Jane longer makes no sense - we owe every friend the truth. The last line, that if Peter finds out he "may not forgive but might understand" is beyond dumb and sounds like bad dialogue from a worse movie. If someone you considered a friend lied to your face and in effect helped your wife to cheat on you, would YOU "understand" ?
At this point, the only honorable course of action that would let the writer look himself in the mirror is to go to Jane, tell her choice is either to tell her husband the truth or the writer will. If she chooses neither then he will have to walk away from their friendship.
On that point, why would the writer want to continue a friendship with a woman (or a man, if the roles were reversed) capable of such continual, serial deceit? This is not a small character flaw, and quite different from a case of 'Oh, I made a mistake, a one night stand but I can't tell my husband" - it is continual, deliberate cheating. No amount of rationalizing ("Jane needs this outlet" - baloney) makes it right. The Ethicist is dead wrong on this, and that the writer has known Jane longer makes no sense - we owe every friend the truth. The last line, that if Peter finds out he "may not forgive but might understand" is beyond dumb and sounds like bad dialogue from a worse movie. If someone you considered a friend lied to your face and in effect helped your wife to cheat on you, would YOU "understand" ?
3
The depth of friendship is not simply a function of time and friendship does not trump all other moral obligations. Jane has been having an affair with her "soul mate" for years, and Martin despite his knowledge is simply a consolation prize. Not content to keep her dishonesty to herself she has involved her "friend" Peter in her deceptions and lies. Jane seems concerned only with her own happiness, and such people usually do not make good friends in the long run.
Rather than convoluted logic proposed by Appiah, there is a much simpler test I propose. How would Martin want to be treated if he was in Peter's situation? If he can honestly say he would like to be decieved indefinetly then by all means keep quiet, otherwise tell Peter and end the toxic friendship with Jane.
Rather than convoluted logic proposed by Appiah, there is a much simpler test I propose. How would Martin want to be treated if he was in Peter's situation? If he can honestly say he would like to be decieved indefinetly then by all means keep quiet, otherwise tell Peter and end the toxic friendship with Jane.
Get new friends.
2
Do not lie for someone else.
2
huh. I guess most Times readers have perfect, morally unassailable friends since they judge Jane to be so unworthy. As a rule, I try not to abandon my friends, even when I recognize they have tragic personality flaws since I know I have them too. On the other hand, some boundaries are a good idea and there's no need to immerse yourself in others' drama. I think the advice of "in future, leave me out of your little ruse" is sound.
2
Where do all these commenters come from? How do they manage to lead these blissful lives free of moral complications? And nearly every one of them so utterly horrified by adultery!
In recent years, two of my good friends have confided in me that they were having an affair without their husband's knowledge. I believe I understand in both cases why they have made the decisions they have. I certainly don't think they are bad people for doing so, nor do I think their marriages are fatally flawed (which is not to say that there aren't difficulties in each case). And there is not a chance I would ever tell the spouses (both of whom I like) and potentially destroy the marriages.
Does this mean I have no moral standards? I don't think so. My acceptance of the situation is a reflection not of the fact that I don't care about morality, but rather that I do: I recognize that there are multiple moral dimensions to this circumstance and the fact of adultery is only one. Such is life. Are we not faced with such situations all the time? Is it only when sexuality is involved that we become aware of the conflicts, the competing ethical considerations?
I understand the writer's discomfort with the situation, especially with having to lie on behalf of his friend. But I don't find it that difficult in the end. It sounds like he is taking the most appropriate approach and he should continue with it.
In recent years, two of my good friends have confided in me that they were having an affair without their husband's knowledge. I believe I understand in both cases why they have made the decisions they have. I certainly don't think they are bad people for doing so, nor do I think their marriages are fatally flawed (which is not to say that there aren't difficulties in each case). And there is not a chance I would ever tell the spouses (both of whom I like) and potentially destroy the marriages.
Does this mean I have no moral standards? I don't think so. My acceptance of the situation is a reflection not of the fact that I don't care about morality, but rather that I do: I recognize that there are multiple moral dimensions to this circumstance and the fact of adultery is only one. Such is life. Are we not faced with such situations all the time? Is it only when sexuality is involved that we become aware of the conflicts, the competing ethical considerations?
I understand the writer's discomfort with the situation, especially with having to lie on behalf of his friend. But I don't find it that difficult in the end. It sounds like he is taking the most appropriate approach and he should continue with it.
2
Seems to me the Ethicist minimized the most important moment in the story, where she openly asked for dishonesty.
4
Of course it matters that the writer is man! Because then it is obvious that the ethical question is really of little concern to the writer.
The writer's main concern is that HE wants to sleep with Jane (ref When Harry Met Sally) and in lieu of that he wants to talk about Jane as much as possible. And now we are all talking about Jane.
Jane...She does sound kind of fascinating...
The writer's main concern is that HE wants to sleep with Jane (ref When Harry Met Sally) and in lieu of that he wants to talk about Jane as much as possible. And now we are all talking about Jane.
Jane...She does sound kind of fascinating...
The letter writer isn't that close to Peter and his certainty that Peter doesn't know seems misplaced. It's hard to hide an affair.
1
I really don't see any substantial advice from Kwame Anthony Appriah so I'm going to add mine. Peter needs to get the heck out of this situation. I personally don't understand why he's involved. Yes, Jane is his long time friend but she's using their friendship to deceive her husband. Seems like she only cares about herself. I'm not buying that she and the guy, Martin are soul mates yet, he's married, with children and lives in another country. Sounds like that Martin may be playing Jane. If she lost her first marriage over the relationship with Martin, why is she testing her current marriage? Peter has got to set boundaries with Jane. If I were him, I would tell her I don't want any part of the situation and highly suggest she tell her husband and/or seek, counseling. Regardless of what she decides to do, I will tell her that she not call me to discuss the affair, text me, email me or put me in any of her lies. I will let her know that I want no part in it and if she continues to disrespect my wishes, I will have to distance myself from my friendship with her. Get out Peter...get out.
1
How is this question not answered by anything more complicated than the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
If your wife was doing this and your friend knew about it, would you want him to tell you?
If your wife was doing this and your friend knew about it, would you want him to tell you?
2
Hey, so who went out to dinner recently with his wife and heard her ask the man they were with: "Did you get the pictures I texted of the Golden Gate Bridge?"
1
I am not sure that "NameWithheld" is completely entitled to own this "moral dilemma".
As other commenters have accurately pointed out, Jane seems to be a lying, manipulative and distrustful individual-not a great character reference. However, "NameWithheld" has been involved in this since the get go-as Jane had discussed this ongoing affair with him even back in her first marriage, which ended in divorce. If "NameWithheld" was so concerned ethically, he should have done something back then-either discuss this with Jane, dump Jane as a friend, or whatever-but he did nothing, and kept Jane as his long time friend.
Now, in the present tense, nothing seems to have changed with Jane's behavior. The only thing that seems to bother "NameWithheld" is he was coerced into telling a lie about Jane's whereabouts, and he might eventually be "outed" as a conspirator.
Well sorry NW, you've been involved in this mess for a long time, and your previous silence about ethics indicates a willingness to be involved, if not outright approval. Your moral silence in the past speaks volumes. Your friendship with Jane is obviously very important to you (recent ethical concern aside), so my advice is keep silent and preserve the relationship that you obviously value most-and hope for the best, whatever that may be…….
JimF from Sewell
As other commenters have accurately pointed out, Jane seems to be a lying, manipulative and distrustful individual-not a great character reference. However, "NameWithheld" has been involved in this since the get go-as Jane had discussed this ongoing affair with him even back in her first marriage, which ended in divorce. If "NameWithheld" was so concerned ethically, he should have done something back then-either discuss this with Jane, dump Jane as a friend, or whatever-but he did nothing, and kept Jane as his long time friend.
Now, in the present tense, nothing seems to have changed with Jane's behavior. The only thing that seems to bother "NameWithheld" is he was coerced into telling a lie about Jane's whereabouts, and he might eventually be "outed" as a conspirator.
Well sorry NW, you've been involved in this mess for a long time, and your previous silence about ethics indicates a willingness to be involved, if not outright approval. Your moral silence in the past speaks volumes. Your friendship with Jane is obviously very important to you (recent ethical concern aside), so my advice is keep silent and preserve the relationship that you obviously value most-and hope for the best, whatever that may be…….
JimF from Sewell
A "quirky intellectual" clearly overthinks this one.
Tell the woman who she gets naked with is her business. But she should NOT assume you will lie for her. THAT'S the betrayal of friendship.
Tell the woman who she gets naked with is her business. But she should NOT assume you will lie for her. THAT'S the betrayal of friendship.
3
"Should I Tell My Friend’s Husband That She’s Having an Affair?"
No, you should not.
However, if YOU disagree with YOUR friend's behavior, YOU should break off YOUR relationship with HER.
If YOU do not disagree, YOU might want to warn her that affairs almost always end badly, but YOU should otherwise not involve YOURself.
No, you should not.
However, if YOU disagree with YOUR friend's behavior, YOU should break off YOUR relationship with HER.
If YOU do not disagree, YOU might want to warn her that affairs almost always end badly, but YOU should otherwise not involve YOURself.
3
I have had friends request me to lie for them in various legal situations. They are no longer my friends. (After all, you do get to choose your friends)
It would be interesting to see if the comments were different if a man were committing the adultery. I think the behavior would not be considered so benign if it were a man doing it on a habitual basis.
Bad behavior begets further bad behavior. Started out many years ago with something to do with a serpent and some fruit. It hasn't changed since then. Keep them at a distance, and if she complains about it, tell her she is the architect of her misery.
It would be interesting to see if the comments were different if a man were committing the adultery. I think the behavior would not be considered so benign if it were a man doing it on a habitual basis.
Bad behavior begets further bad behavior. Started out many years ago with something to do with a serpent and some fruit. It hasn't changed since then. Keep them at a distance, and if she complains about it, tell her she is the architect of her misery.
People need to mind their own business when it comes to other people's sexuality and relationships, regardless of whether someone thinks an action is "right or wrong" based on a personal moral compass.
Part of that "minding your own business" involves not dragging others into your relationship, which is what Jane did when she asked the letter writer the question about the Golden Gate Bridge.
Therefore, just as Jane felt it was right to include him in her lie then the letter writer needs to ask himself what he feels is right regarding Jane's lie. If his relationship with Jane is more important to him than "moral outrage" about her affair, then he keeps quiet (or keeps quiet and tells Jane he wont lie for her ever again). If his morals compel him to tell Peter, then he should tell Peter.
In the end its not a question you can ask anyone else, because the writer has to follow his heart, his judgement, and his morals.
Part of that "minding your own business" involves not dragging others into your relationship, which is what Jane did when she asked the letter writer the question about the Golden Gate Bridge.
Therefore, just as Jane felt it was right to include him in her lie then the letter writer needs to ask himself what he feels is right regarding Jane's lie. If his relationship with Jane is more important to him than "moral outrage" about her affair, then he keeps quiet (or keeps quiet and tells Jane he wont lie for her ever again). If his morals compel him to tell Peter, then he should tell Peter.
In the end its not a question you can ask anyone else, because the writer has to follow his heart, his judgement, and his morals.
I would hope that none of my friends would cheat on his or her spouse, but if they do, I hope they'll have the decency to at least not tell me about it. Fortunately I seldom discuss my friends' sex lives with them. And by seldom I mean never. I think that's a good policy for anyone to have. By all means, explore your sexuality. Just do not tell me what you find because I do not want to know.
I couldn't agree more with prof. Appiah's ultimate conclusion that life can be messy and sometimes the right decision can still feel wrong. I also love the concept of "moral narcissism", which I have never come across phrased so succinctly before. However, I am curious as to why Prof. Appiah contends that it matters that the writer is a man?
I am not necessarily in disagreement, I'm just skeptical and curious (in equal measure). Is it more of an imperative for a woman to be honest with her friend's husband than it is for a man? (That doesn't seem quite right)... Is there some sort of special obligation among mixed gendered friendships (I guess going in both directions) that ostensibly demand greater intimacy and trust making any violation of that trust a more pronounced ill? Or is it that the expectation placed on male friends to keep a confidence regarding sexual indiscretion is such a prevalent and accepted notion as to equate it (at least in Jane's mind) with a priestly confession. Failing to keep Jane's confession secret might therefore be compounded by the fact that disclosure would also be an act of sexism as most men wouldn't disclose a dalliance in the other direction. I don't really know where Appiah was going with this line of reasoning and I kind of want to find out.
I am not necessarily in disagreement, I'm just skeptical and curious (in equal measure). Is it more of an imperative for a woman to be honest with her friend's husband than it is for a man? (That doesn't seem quite right)... Is there some sort of special obligation among mixed gendered friendships (I guess going in both directions) that ostensibly demand greater intimacy and trust making any violation of that trust a more pronounced ill? Or is it that the expectation placed on male friends to keep a confidence regarding sexual indiscretion is such a prevalent and accepted notion as to equate it (at least in Jane's mind) with a priestly confession. Failing to keep Jane's confession secret might therefore be compounded by the fact that disclosure would also be an act of sexism as most men wouldn't disclose a dalliance in the other direction. I don't really know where Appiah was going with this line of reasoning and I kind of want to find out.
1
This is exactly why marriage is such an infantile and ridiculous institution. If you really love someone, you want them to follow their bliss and communicate freely with you without consequences. Attempting to restrict another person's behaviour with a legal contract is the polar opposite of love.
Years ago, I was in Peter's situation-- my ex-wife was cheating with her boss and her best friend (also a friend of mine) was complicit with her affair. They kept me out of the dark and it was not until years later when I discovered the affair. My own belief was I was denied the opportunity to respond to the circumstances as they occurred and thus denied the opportunity to effect change when change was possible (the decision to start a family together, make long-term financial decisions)-- none of these issues appear to be relevant for Peter-- but Peter is being denied that opportunity to choose his own destiny. There is an argument here that you owe Peter the right to have an informed decision how he wishes to proceed-- live in a false fantasy world or live in the reality of his compromised marital relationship.
4
Her affair, the state of her marriage, are issues for Jane and her husband to address. The writer's assessment of the marriage is based on conjectures and assumptions. The writer's only concern should be his friendship with Jane. Once she made him a co-conspirator in her duplicity,, she showed her lack of respect and care for the friendship. He should tell Jane that if she does it again, he will not lie and be prepared to walk away from the friendship.
2
I am usually a fan of the ethicist. But I was really disappointed with the answer this time. Jane is lying to people, and causing the writer to lie for her. What you don't know Can hurt you. If the writer doesn't feel that he can tell her husband the truth about her affair, then he could at least pressure her to tell the truth. If she isn't willing to be honest, he should distance himself from her; what is friendship without trust?
1
This is not anyome's responsibility except Jane's. The fact that she brought her friend in to support her is not to be ignored. She put this responsibility on your shoulders, so put it back. Tell her she can either leave you out of it, or she can tell him the truth. Explain to her, not him, all the reasons this makes you uncomfortable and why you do not deserve to be brought into the middle of it because she knows it's not fair. She needs to be told that this is a charade and like all charades, they fail eventually. She desperately needs to come to terms with her feeling before another marriage (that you get to witness this time) fails. This is not reality and it's not fair for anyone. These people aren't childern anymore, they are adults. Frankly, putting your job as the number one position in your life is deplorable. She would never leave her job but husbands? that's another ballgame. If she, Jane, truly loved this man she would have done everything in her power to be with him. Truth is, this isn't reality, they aren't adults and they aren't playing by the rules of being adults. Grow up Janey, life isn't just about you and how you "feel" this is real life with real people's feeling involved. Stop trying to marginalize this because there is a reason you feel uncomfortable, friend, it's your subconcious trying to get you to do the right thing. So do it
Nah, just lay low and let it run its course. Jane may be scum to the men she dates, but she's your friend. Sometimes that takes precedence over hurting the guy she is putting in pain.
LW,
Please obtain a hug.
Sincerely,
KDog
Please obtain a hug.
Sincerely,
KDog
I feel bad for you being caught up in this complex recipe of deceit, however I have another ingredient for you to consider. HIV/AIDS. Jane does not know what this man from another continent does in his spare time between their visits together. You did not mention if Jane and Peter have children, however I'm sure there are many people whose lives would be affected if this fatal ingredient were to make its way in. I'm a retired nurse. I had the misfortune, or rather I should say an old classmate of mine had the misfortune of contracting HIV from her husband who was carrying on affairs. I'd had the misfortune of watching her die from her husbands indiscretions and recklessness. He died shortly after she did, which left their two beautiful daughters, about 5 and 7 years of age, orphans. The girls were lucky enough to have loving grandparents take them in to raise them. Tell Jane to get herself tested for STD's. If she comes up clean she needs to either be only with her husband or move on. Peter or any other family or friends do not need to watch and be subject to the very real and possibly horrific consequences of Jane's utter and complete disregard for anyone else's well being. It is also of my opinion, she is no "friend" to you, placing you in this precarious situation.
2
He might want to ask Jane if she thinks Peter is having an affair. Then, ask Jane if he knew Peter was having an affair would she expect him to tell her? Sounds soapy but Peter may be a bit busy also.
Since the writer is an old friend of Jane, I would recommend that he talk to her more personally about what's going on in her life, and remind her that her first marriage broke up because of the affair with Martin. But ultimately, its her decision, as well as the potential consequences.
Certainly, its an awkward situation for the writer.
Certainly, its an awkward situation for the writer.
What is wrong with everybody? Jane is cheating - Peter deserves to know. That's it. There's no other way this can go. Clearly, Jane has some serious problems if she thinks it's okay to cheat on two consecutive husbands; likewise, the asker has some serious problems being friends with an individual like that. This doesn't come down to 'interfering in other people's lives' - it comes down to doing what's right by somebody wronged, regardless of friendships or how long you've known a person. How can the asker sit here and say "the affair is good for everyone"?! Affairs are good for nobody.
3
first of all i think someone that betrays trust should not be mad if someone else also betrays their trust. Jane already betrayed her marital trust which is something secret. by the way the question you should be asking yourself is how will you feel if you where peter your friend didn't tell you?. after that analysis look at the best scenario that had you been peter you find out under you would be much more satisfied. that scenario will be the best action for you to take.
I think the writer should not be involved in the drama. Just ask Jane to keep it to herself and carry on. It's not the writer's business. People are infinitely complicated and I think if the writer loves Jane and values her friendship, so be it. Being an intimate requires keeping some secrets and carrying a few skeletons. But if he can't carry the skeletons; don't.
This sort of thing goes on all the time. Unless someone commits suicide or kills someone involved here, it is as they say, not a matter of life or death. It is just behaviour that takes place over the course of any given lifetime. Catherine the Great had three children by three different men -- none of whom were her husband. This was in the mid-1700's. Someoen thought that they were opening floodgates of sexuality in the 1960's, but that was just a public acknowledgement of behaviour that has persisted almost since the beginning of the human species.
In spreading its journalistic wings, The "Times" is just joining a trend that follows tabloid fodder from day to day. This story is already the most e-mailed at this moment as people's prurient interests arise on a Holiday Wednesday afternoon.
In spreading its journalistic wings, The "Times" is just joining a trend that follows tabloid fodder from day to day. This story is already the most e-mailed at this moment as people's prurient interests arise on a Holiday Wednesday afternoon.
2
I would advise the LW to tell Jane that he's tired of being just friends after all these years, and that he wants some intimate time with her, too. And that he'll tell her husband about the affair if she refuses. If she says yes, terrific for the LW. If she doesn't, the LW can decide to tell Peter or not, but in either case he should get some if he can and then move on and leave both these friends behind. Frankly, I would not be at all surprised if Jane said yes. She obviously likes intrigue and giving some to the LW would "up" the triangulations she so enjoys.
1
You need to tell the cheating beyotch that you did not appreciate being used in her lie to her husband, and if she does it again, you will expose her right then and there. Tell her that either she ends the affair, or comes clean to her husband, that you no longer want to socialize with her. It's time to limit your interaction with these people as much as you possibly can.
1
I've been in this situation before - and really, it's not too complicated. My attitude is, if it was me who was being deceived, I would generally expect someone who respects me to fill me in on the deception and would sever my relationships with those who kept me in the dark. So it really depends on the letter writer's respect (or lack thereof) for Peter than his concern for Jane.
1
"Jane" was seeing "Martin" in another county when possible, and was using my wife to help with language issues, swearing my wife to secrecy. My wife did that only for a few weeks before confiding in me what "Jane" was up to. My wife said she feared I would by chance come across messages on her phone and wonder what the hell was up. My wife also thought (correctly) that if I saw that she was OK with her friend having an affair and my wife helping her cover it up, what would that say about my wife's sense of commitment to our monogamous relationship?
My wife and I were at "Jane" and "Peter's" flat one day. "Peter" was commenting how strange it was that "Jane" got a CD of her favorite music from "Martin", a guy she supposedly barely knew. My wife and I were then in the same situation as the protagonist. We didn't say anything.
What we did do was end the friendship with "Jane" and "Peter". My wife made it clear to "Jane" that she didn't approve and didn't want to be part of the lie. I told "Peter" that I was sorry, but it was going to be unworkable as a friendship if our respective mates didn't get along at all. Looking back, I wish I'd told him why.